
@book{abrajano2015using,
  title = {Using Experiments to Estimate Racially Polarized Voting},
  author = {Abrajano, Marisa and Elmendorf, Christofer S and Quinn, Kevin M},
  year = {2015},
  publisher = {{UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper 419}}
}

@article{abrajano2015usinga,
  title = {Using Experiments to Estimate Racially Polarized Voting},
  author = {Abrajano, Marisa and Elmendorf, Christopher S and Quinn, Kevin M},
  year = {2015},
  journal = {UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper},
  number = {419}
}

@article{abramowitz2016rise,
  title = {The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of {{US}} Elections in the 21st Century},
  author = {Abramowitz, Alan I and Webster, Steven},
  year = {2016},
  volume = {41},
  pages = {12--22},
  publisher = {{Elsevier}},
  journal = {Electoral Studies}
}

@techreport{ahler2015partisans,
  title = {The {{Partisans}} in Our {{Heads}}},
  author = {Ahler, Douglas and Sood, Gaurav},
  year = {2015},
  month = aug,
  address = {{Rochester, NY}},
  institution = {{Social Science Research Network}},
  doi = {10.2139/ssrn.2840253},
  abstract = {Which social groups do people associate with the two main American political parties? To assess that, we conducted a survey in 2013. We told respondents that we had paired them with two randomly chosen respondents from a recent survey, a Republican and a Democrat. We asked respondents to guess the economic class, religion, race, gender, age, and union membership status of these (hypothetical) respondents. Since our respondents knew nothing about the hypothetical other respondents except for party identi cation, guesses likely reflect respondents' beliefs about the modal groups in the parties. The data suggest that people are much more likely to think that the modal Republican is rich, old, white, male, and not affiliated with a union vis-a-vis the modal Democrat, even though the parties' modal identi ers belong to the same category, save gender. As a corollary, a non-trivial number of respondents misperceive the composition of the Democratic Party.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\YAPCPK44\\papers.html},
  keywords = {Douglas Ahler,Gaurav Sood,SSRN,The Partisans in our Heads},
  language = {en},
  number = {ID 2840253},
  type = {{{SSRN Scholarly Paper}}}
}

@article{ahler2018parties,
  title = {The Parties in Our Heads: {{Misperceptions}} about Party Composition and Their Consequences},
  author = {Ahler, Douglas J and Sood, Gaurav},
  year = {2018},
  volume = {80},
  pages = {964--981},
  publisher = {{University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL}},
  journal = {The Journal of Politics},
  number = {3}
}

@techreport{ahler2020typecast,
  title = {Typecast: {{A Routine Mental Shortcut Causes Party Stereotyping}}},
  shorttitle = {Typecast},
  author = {Ahler, Douglas and Sood, Gaurav},
  year = {2020},
  month = mar,
  address = {{Rochester, NY}},
  doi = {10.2139/ssrn.3550117},
  abstract = {Party stereotyping inflames polarization. What fuels party stereotyping? We explore the extent to which a common mental shortcut \textemdash{} the representativeness heuristic \textemdash{} yields biased mental images of the parties. First, we show that people commit the conjunction fallacy \textemdash{} a logical error associated with representativeness bias \textemdash{} at higher rates when evaluating others with party-representative characteristics. Second, when we inform people how groups compose parties, the least numerate use this information to infer party composition, consistent with the representativeness heuristic. Finally, we show that people's party stereotypes become more biased when we increase cognitive load, though stereotyping occurs even in relatively ``easy'' contexts. The representativeness heuristic appears to exacerbate party stereotyping, and the way that media informs people about the relationship between social groups and parties may encourage reliance on representativeness. More broadly, reducing stereotyping requires reckoning with our built-in machinery for simplifying the world around us.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\B99ENPC8\\papers.html},
  keywords = {misperception,partisanship,polarization,political behavior,politics,stereotypes},
  language = {en},
  type = {({{March}} 10, 2020). {{Available}} at {{SSRN}}: {{https://ssrn.com/abstract=3550117}} or {{http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3550117}}}
}

@article{alabrese2019who,
  title = {Who Voted for {{Brexit}}? {{Individual}} and Regional Data Combined},
  shorttitle = {Who Voted for {{Brexit}}?},
  author = {Alabrese, Eleonora and Becker, Sascha O. and Fetzer, Thiemo and Novy, Dennis},
  year = {2019},
  month = jan,
  volume = {56},
  pages = {132--150},
  issn = {0176-2680},
  doi = {10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2018.08.002},
  abstract = {Previous analyses of the 2016 Brexit referendum used region-level data or small samples based on polling data. The former might be subject to ecological fallacy and the latter might suffer from small-sample bias. We use individual-level data on thousands of respondents in Understanding Society, the UK's largest household survey, which includes the EU referendum question. We find that voting Leave is associated with older age, white ethnicity, low educational attainment, infrequent use of smartphones and the internet, receiving benefits, adverse health and low life satisfaction. These results coincide with corresponding patterns at the aggregate level of voting areas. We therefore do not find evidence of ecological fallacy. In addition, we show that prediction accuracy is geographically heterogeneous across UK regions, with strongly pro-Leave and strongly pro-Remain areas easier to predict. We also show that among individuals with similar socio-economic characteristics, Labour supporters are more likely to support Remain while Conservative supporters are more likely to support Leave.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Dropbox\\Zotero\\Alabrese et al_2019_Who voted for Brexit.pdf;C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\DW3TY9KM\\S0176268018301320.html},
  journal = {European Journal of Political Economy},
  keywords = {Aggregation,Ecological fallacy,European Union,Populism,Referendum,UK},
  language = {en}
}

@article{alford1967class,
  title = {Class Voting in the {{Anglo}}-{{American}} Political Systems},
  author = {Alford, Robert R},
  year = {1967},
  pages = {67--93},
  publisher = {{Free Press New York}},
  journal = {Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives}
}

@article{allcott2017social,
  title = {Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election},
  author = {Allcott, Hunt and Gentzkow, Matthew},
  year = {2017},
  volume = {31},
  pages = {211--36},
  journal = {Journal of economic perspectives},
  number = {2}
}

@article{arceneaux2013effects,
  title = {The Effects of Need for Cognition and Need for Affect on Partisan Evaluations},
  author = {Arceneaux, Kevin and Vander Wielen, Ryan J},
  year = {2013},
  volume = {34},
  pages = {23--42},
  publisher = {{Wiley Online Library}},
  journal = {Political Psychology},
  number = {1}
}

@article{atanasov2017distilling,
  title = {Distilling the Wisdom of Crowds: {{Prediction}} Markets vs. Prediction Polls},
  author = {Atanasov, Pavel and Rescober, Phillip and Stone, Eric and Swift, Samuel A and {Servan-Schreiber}, Emile and Tetlock, Philip and Ungar, Lyle and Mellers, Barbara},
  year = {2017},
  volume = {63},
  pages = {691--706},
  publisher = {{INFORMS}},
  journal = {Management science},
  number = {3}
}

@book{ball2013portrait,
  title = {Portrait of a {{Party}}: {{The Conservative Party}} in {{Britain}} 1918-1945},
  shorttitle = {Portrait of a {{Party}}},
  author = {Ball, Stuart},
  year = {2013},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},
  abstract = {"Portrait of a Party" published on  by Oxford University Press.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\5ILVCJ2M\\acprof-9780199667987.html},
  isbn = {978-0-19-175135-6},
  journal = {Portrait of a Party},
  language = {en\_US}
}

@book{ballpublic,
  title = {The {{Public}}: {{Appeal}} and {{Support}}},
  shorttitle = {The {{Public}}},
  author = {Ball, Stuart},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},
  abstract = {This chapter assesses the nature of the Conservative Party's appeal, and the language and methods by which this was communicated to the public. This includes the image projected by the party, the role of the press and media, political campaigning, and the use of propaganda. The second part of the chapter explores the patterns of Conservative electoral support, through a unique linkage of the constituency electoral results with economic and social data derived from the occupation tables of the 1931 census. It constructs an economic and social profile of the Conservative vote, and explores aspects such as plural voting, the middle class vote, support from women, the working class vote, and looks in detail at the results of the general elections from 1918 to 1945.},
  chapter = {Portrait of a Party},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\LDYQB9CV\\acprof-9780199667987-chapter-3.html},
  isbn = {978-0-19-175135-6},
  journal = {Portrait of a Party},
  language = {en\_US}
}

@article{bankert2020negative,
  title = {Negative and Positive Partisanship in the 2016 {{US}} Presidential Elections},
  author = {Bankert, Alexa},
  year = {2020},
  pages = {1--19},
  publisher = {{Springer}},
  journal = {Political Behavior}
}

@incollection{bansak2020conjoint,
  title = {Conjoint Survey Experiments},
  booktitle = {Advances in {{Experimental Political Science}}},
  author = {Bansak, Kirk and Hainmueller, Jens and Hopkins, Daniel J and Yamamoto, Teppei and Druckman, JN and Green, DP},
  year = {2020},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
  isbn = {978-1-108-47850-2}
}

@techreport{bansak2020using,
  title = {Using {{Conjoint Experiments}} to {{Analyze Elections}}: {{The Essential Role}} of the {{Average Marginal Component Effect}} ({{AMCE}})},
  shorttitle = {Using {{Conjoint Experiments}} to {{Analyze Elections}}},
  author = {Bansak, Kirk and Hainmueller, Jens and Hopkins, Daniel J. and Yamamoto, Teppei},
  year = {2020},
  month = apr,
  address = {{Rochester, NY}},
  institution = {{Social Science Research Network}},
  doi = {10.2139/ssrn.3588941},
  abstract = {Political scientists have increasingly deployed conjoint survey experiments to understand multi-dimensional choices in various settings. We begin with a general framework for analyzing voter preferences in multi-attribute elections using conjoints. With this framework, we demonstrate that the Average Marginal Component Effect (AMCE) is well-defined in terms of individual preferences and represents a central quantity of interest to empirical scholars of elections: the effect of a change in an attribute on a candidate or party's expected vote share. This property holds irrespective of the heterogeneity, strength, or interactivity of voters' preferences and regardless of how votes are aggregated into seats. Overall, our results indicate the essential role of AMCEs for understanding elections, a conclusion buttressed by a corresponding literature review. We also provide practical advice on interpreting AMCEs and discuss how conjoint data can be used to estimate other quantities of interest to electoral studies.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\52IY6TQW\\papers.html},
  keywords = {AMCE,causal inference,conjoint,elections,survey experiments},
  language = {en},
  number = {ID 3588941},
  type = {{{SSRN Scholarly Paper}}}
}

@article{bansak2021breaking,
  title = {Beyond the Breaking Point? {{Survey}} Satisficing in Conjoint Experiments},
  shorttitle = {Beyond the Breaking Point?},
  author = {Bansak, Kirk and Hainmueller, Jens and Hopkins, Daniel J. and Yamamoto, Teppei},
  year = {2021},
  month = jan,
  volume = {9},
  pages = {53--71},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
  issn = {2049-8470, 2049-8489},
  doi = {10.1017/psrm.2019.13},
  abstract = {Recent years have seen a renaissance of conjoint survey designs within social science. To date, however, researchers have lacked guidance on how many attributes they can include within conjoint profiles before survey satisficing leads to unacceptable declines in response quality. This paper addresses that question using pre-registered, two-stage experiments examining choices among hypothetical candidates for US Senate or hotel rooms. In each experiment, we use the first stage to identify attributes which are perceived to be uncorrelated with the attribute of interest, so that their effects are not masked by those of the core attributes. In the second stage, we randomly assign respondents to conjoint designs with varying numbers of those filler attributes. We report the results of these experiments implemented via Amazon's Mechanical Turk and Survey Sampling International. They demonstrate that our core quantities of interest are generally stable, with relatively modest increases in survey satisficing when respondents face large numbers of attributes.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Dropbox\\Zotero\\Bansak et al_2021_Beyond the breaking point.pdf},
  journal = {Political Science Research and Methods},
  keywords = {Conjoint analysis,response bias,survey experiments,survey satisficing},
  language = {en},
  number = {1}
}

@incollection{barker2020misinformation,
  title = {Misinformation, Fake News, and Dueling Fact Perceptions in Public Opinion and Elections},
  booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion},
  author = {Barker, David C and Marietta, Morgan},
  year = {2020}
}

@article{baron2014two,
  title = {Two Reasons to Make Aggregated Probability Forecasts More Extreme},
  author = {Baron, Jonathan and Mellers, Barbara A and Tetlock, Philip E and Stone, Eric and Ungar, Lyle H},
  year = {2014},
  volume = {11},
  pages = {133--145},
  publisher = {{INFORMS}},
  journal = {Decision Analysis},
  number = {2}
}

@article{bawn2012theory,
  title = {A Theory of Political Parties: {{Groups}}, Policy Demands and Nominations in {{American}} Politics},
  author = {Bawn, Kathleen and Cohen, Martin and Karol, David and Masket, Seth and Noel, Hans and Zaller, John},
  year = {2012},
  volume = {10},
  pages = {571--597},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
  journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
  number = {3}
}

@book{beck2002individualization,
  title = {Individualization: {{Institutionalized}} Individualism and Its Social and Political Consequences},
  author = {Beck, Ulrich},
  year = {2002},
  volume = {13},
  publisher = {{Sage}}
}

@article{berinsky2017rumors,
  title = {Rumors and Health Care Reform: {{Experiments}} in Political Misinformation},
  author = {Berinsky, Adam J},
  year = {2017},
  volume = {47},
  pages = {241--262},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
  journal = {British journal of political science},
  number = {2}
}

@article{berinsky2018telling,
  title = {Telling the Truth about Believing the Lies? {{Evidence}} for the Limited Prevalence of Expressive Survey Responding},
  author = {Berinsky, Adam J},
  year = {2018},
  volume = {80},
  pages = {211--224},
  publisher = {{University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL}},
  journal = {The Journal of Politics},
  number = {1}
}

@article{bliuc2007opinionbased,
  title = {Opinion-Based Group Membership as a Predictor of Commitment to Political Action},
  author = {Bliuc, Ana-Maria and McGarty, Craig and Reynolds, Katherine and Muntele, Daniela},
  year = {2007},
  volume = {37},
  pages = {19--32},
  publisher = {{Wiley Online Library}},
  journal = {European Journal of Social Psychology},
  number = {1}
}

@article{bolsen2015citizens,
  title = {Citizens', Scientists', and Policy Advisors' Beliefs about Global Warming},
  author = {Bolsen, Toby and Druckman, James N and Cook, Fay Lomax},
  year = {2015},
  volume = {658},
  pages = {271--295},
  publisher = {{Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA}},
  journal = {The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science},
  number = {1}
}

@article{boon2012predicting,
  title = {Predicting Elections: {{A}} `Wisdom of Crowds' Approach},
  author = {Boon, Martin},
  year = {2012},
  volume = {54},
  pages = {465--483},
  publisher = {{SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England}},
  journal = {International Journal of Market Research},
  number = {4}
}

@article{borthwick1991social,
  title = {{{THE SOCIAL BACKGROUND OF BRITISH MPs}}},
  author = {Borthwick, George and Ellingworth, Daniel and Bell, Colin and MacKenzie, Donald},
  year = {1991},
  volume = {25},
  pages = {713--717},
  publisher = {{Sage Publications, Ltd.}},
  issn = {0038-0385},
  journal = {Sociology},
  number = {4}
}

@book{bourdieu1984distinction,
  title = {Distinction: {{A}} Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste},
  author = {Bourdieu, Pierre},
  year = {1984},
  publisher = {{Harvard university press}}
}

@article{brier1950verification,
  title = {Verification of Forecasts Expressed in Terms of Probability},
  author = {Brier, Glenn W},
  year = {1950},
  volume = {78},
  pages = {1--3},
  journal = {Monthly weather review},
  number = {1}
}

@article{broockman2018bias,
  title = {Bias in {{Perceptions}} of {{Public Opinion}} among {{Political Elites}}},
  author = {Broockman, David E. and Skovron, Christopher},
  year = {2018},
  month = aug,
  volume = {112},
  pages = {542--563},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
  issn = {0003-0554, 1537-5943},
  doi = {10.1017/S0003055418000011},
  abstract = {The conservative asymmetry of elite polarization represents a significant puzzle. We argue that politicians can maintain systematic misperceptions of constituency opinion that may contribute to breakdowns in dyadic representation. We demonstrate this argument with original surveys of 3,765 politicians' perceptions of constituency opinion on nine issues. In 2012 and 2014, state legislative politicians from both parties dramatically overestimated their constituents' support for conservative policies on these issues, a pattern consistent across methods, districts, and states. Republicans drive much of this overestimation. Exploiting responses from politicians in the same district, we confirm these partisan differences within individual districts. Further evidence suggests that this overestimation may arise due to biases in who contacts politicians, as in recent years Republican citizens have been especially likely to contact legislators, especially fellow Republicans. Our findings suggest that a novel force can operate in elections and in legislatures: Politicians can systematically misperceive what their constituents want.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Dropbox\\Zotero\\Broockman_Skovron_2018_Bias in Perceptions of Public Opinion among Political Elites.pdf;C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\PFFAMMSW\\2EF080E04D3AAE6AC1C894F52642E706.html},
  journal = {American Political Science Review},
  language = {en},
  number = {3}
}

@article{bullock2011elite,
  title = {Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate},
  author = {Bullock, John G},
  year = {2011},
  pages = {496--515},
  publisher = {{JSTOR}},
  journal = {American Political Science Review}
}

@techreport{bullock2013partisan,
  title = {Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics},
  author = {Bullock, John G and Gerber, Alan S and Hill, Seth J and Huber, Gregory A},
  year = {2013},
  institution = {{National Bureau of Economic Research}}
}

@article{bullock2019partisan,
  title = {Partisan Bias in Surveys},
  author = {Bullock, John G and Lenz, Gabriel},
  year = {2019},
  volume = {22},
  pages = {325--342},
  publisher = {{Annual Reviews}},
  journal = {Annual Review of Political Science}
}

@book{bulter1969political,
  title = {Political {{Change}} in {{Britain}}: {{Forces Shaping Electoral Choice}}},
  author = {Bulter, David and Stokes, Donald},
  year = {1969},
  publisher = {{New York: St. Martin's Press}}
}

@book{butler1969stokes,
  title = {Stokes. {{Political Change}} in {{Britain}}: {{Forces Shaping Electoral Choice}}},
  author = {Butler, David and Donald, E},
  year = {1969},
  publisher = {{London: Macmillan}}
}

@book{butler1971political,
  title = {Political {{Change}} in {{Britain}}: {{Forces Shaping Electoral Change}}},
  author = {Butler, David and Stokes, Donald E},
  year = {1971},
  publisher = {{Penguin}}
}

@book{butler1974political,
  title = {Political Change in {{Britain}}: {{Basis}} of Electoral Choice},
  author = {Butler, David and Stoke, Donald},
  year = {1974},
  publisher = {{Springer}}
}

@article{campbell1954voter,
  title = {The Voter Decides.},
  author = {Campbell, Angus and Gurin, Gerald and Miller, Warren E},
  year = {1954},
  publisher = {{Row, Peterson, and Co.}}
}

@book{campbell1960american,
  title = {The American Voter},
  author = {Campbell, Angus and Converse, Philip E and Miller, Warren E and Stokes, Donald E},
  year = {1960},
  publisher = {{University of Chicago Press}}
}

@article{carlson2021experimental,
  title = {Experimental Measurement of Misperception in Political Beliefs},
  author = {Carlson, Taylor N and Hill, Seth J},
  year = {2021},
  volume = {In Press},
  journal = {Journal of Experimental Political Science}
}

@article{caruana2015power,
  title = {The Power of the Dark Side: {{Negative}} Partisanship and Political Behaviour in {{Canada}}},
  author = {Caruana, Nicholas J and McGregor, R Michael and Stephenson, Laura B},
  year = {2015},
  pages = {771--789},
  publisher = {{JSTOR}},
  journal = {Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique}
}

@article{castle2019new,
  title = {New Fronts in the Culture Wars? {{Religion}}, Partisanship, and Polarization on Religious Liberty and Transgender Rights in the {{United States}}},
  author = {Castle, Jeremiah},
  year = {2019},
  volume = {47},
  pages = {650--679},
  publisher = {{SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA}},
  journal = {American Politics Research},
  number = {3}
}

@article{chambers2006misperceptions,
  title = {Misperceptions in Intergroup Conflict: {{Disagreeing}} about What We Disagree About},
  author = {Chambers, John R and Baron, Robert S and Inman, Mary L},
  year = {2006},
  volume = {17},
  pages = {38--45},
  publisher = {{SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA}},
  journal = {Psychological Science},
  number = {1}
}

@article{claassen2019which,
  title = {Which {{Party Represents My Group}}? {{The Group Foundations}} of {{Partisan Choice}} and {{Polarization}}},
  shorttitle = {Which {{Party Represents My Group}}?},
  author = {Claassen, Ryan L. and Djupe, Paul A. and Lewis, Andrew R. and Neiheisel, Jacob R.},
  year = {2019},
  month = aug,
  issn = {1573-6687},
  doi = {10.1007/s11109-019-09565-6},
  abstract = {While groups have been central to thinking about partisan identity and choices, there has been surprisingly little attention paid to the role of perceptions of the group composition of the parties. We explore this critical linking information in the context of religious groups, some of the chief pivots around which the parties have been sorting. Using three national samples, we show that perceptions of the religious group composition of the parties are often biased\textemdash evangelicals overestimate the presence of evangelicals within the Republican Party and the irreligious within the Democratic Party. The key finding is that individuals are far more likely to identify with the party in which they believe their group is well represented\textemdash a finding which clarifies the role of party image shifts in constructing partisanship, the limits of the culture war motif, and the importance of social perception in shaping beliefs about party representation.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Dropbox\\Zotero\\Claassen et al_2019_Which Party Represents My Group.pdf},
  journal = {Political Behavior},
  language = {en}
}

@article{clark1991social,
  title = {Are Social Classes Dying?},
  author = {Clark, Terry Nichols and Lipset, Seymour Martin},
  year = {1991},
  volume = {6},
  pages = {397--410},
  publisher = {{Sage Publications}},
  journal = {International sociology},
  number = {4}
}

@book{clarke2004political,
  title = {Political Choice in {{Britain}}},
  author = {Clarke, Harold D and Sanders, David and Stewart, Marianne C and Whiteley, Paul and others},
  year = {2004},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press on Demand}}
}

@article{clarke2017whya,
  title = {Why {{Britain Voted}} for {{Brexit}}: {{An Individual}}-{{Level Analysis}} of the 2016 {{Referendum Vote}}},
  shorttitle = {Why {{Britain Voted}} for {{Brexit}}},
  author = {Clarke, Harold D. and Goodwin, Matthew and Whiteley, Paul},
  year = {2017},
  month = jul,
  volume = {70},
  pages = {439--464},
  issn = {0031-2290},
  doi = {10.1093/pa/gsx005},
  abstract = {This article investigates forces that shaped the decisions voters made in the 23 June 2016 referendum on the UK's continued membership in the European Union. A multivariate model informed by previous research on voting in major ``polity-shaping' referendums is employed assess factors affecting how voters cast their ballots in the EU referendum. Employing data gathered in a national panel survey conducted before and after the referendum, analyses document that economic- and immigration-focused benefit-cost evaluations strongly influenced voters' decisions. Risk assessments, emotional reactions to EU membership and leader image heuristics were other major proximate forces driving the choices voters made. National identities were influential as well, but operated further back in the set of forces affecting attitudes towards the EU. The June 23rd Brexit decision thus reflected a diverse mix of calculations, emotions and cues. Given the close division of the vote, it is plausible that a substantial change in any of these factors could have changed the referendum outcome.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Dropbox\\Zotero\\Clarke et al_2017_Why Britain Voted for Brexit2.pdf;C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\CEK3T47U\\3109029.html},
  journal = {Parliamentary Affairs},
  number = {3}
}

@book{cohen2009party,
  title = {The Party Decides: {{Presidential}} Nominations before and after Reform},
  author = {Cohen, Marty and Karol, David and Noel, Hans and Zaller, John},
  year = {2009},
  publisher = {{University of Chicago Press}}
}

@incollection{converse1964nature,
  title = {The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics},
  booktitle = {Ideology and Its Discontents},
  author = {Converse, Philip E},
  editor = {Apter, David},
  year = {1964},
  publisher = {{Glencoe Free Press}},
  address = {{New York}}
}

@article{converse2006nature,
  title = {The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics (1964)},
  author = {Converse, Philip E},
  year = {2006},
  volume = {18},
  pages = {1--74},
  publisher = {{Taylor \& Francis}},
  journal = {Critical review},
  number = {1-3}
}

@book{cox1993legislative,
  title = {Legislative {{Leviathan}}: {{Party}} Government in the {{House}}},
  author = {Cox, Gary W. and McCubbins, Matthew D.},
  year = {1993},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}}
}

@article{dana2019are,
  title = {Are Markets More Accurate than Polls? {{The}} Surprising Informational Value of "Just Asking"},
  author = {Dana, Jason and Atanasov, Pavel and Tetlock, Philip and Mellers, Barbara},
  year = {2019},
  volume = {14},
  pages = {135--147},
  publisher = {{Society for Judgment and Decision Making}},
  journal = {Judgment and Decision Making},
  number = {2}
}

@article{dassonneville2016volatile,
  title = {Volatile Voters, Short-Term Choices? {{An}} Analysis of the Vote Choice Determinants of Stable and Volatile Voters in {{Great Britain}}},
  shorttitle = {Volatile Voters, Short-Term Choices?},
  author = {Dassonneville, Ruth},
  year = {2016},
  month = jul,
  volume = {26},
  pages = {273--292},
  publisher = {{Routledge}},
  issn = {1745-7289},
  doi = {10.1080/17457289.2016.1158181},
  abstract = {The increase of electoral volatility in established democracies is typically interpreted as proof that short-term factors are increasingly important determinants of vote choice. The empirical evidence to support this assertion, however, is relatively weak. This paper addresses this question by investigating the impact of both long- and short-term determinants on the vote choices of stable and volatile voters in Britain. Analysis of three British election panels (1992\textendash 1997, 1997\textendash 2001 and 2005\textendash 2010) indicates that short-term factors \textendash{} especially economic issues \textendash{} do have more weight in determining the vote choices of volatile voters compared with stable voters. However, the results also reveal that the growth in instability of voting behaviour is driven mainly by the weakening impact of long-term factors and not by increasing importance of short-term determinants of the vote choice. Short-term predictors are becoming more important, therefore, but this gain in strength is in relative rather than absolute terms.},
  annotation = {\_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2016.1158181},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Dropbox\\Zotero\\Dassonneville_2016_Volatile voters, short-term choices.pdf;C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\TFZ2FJ5C\\17457289.2016.html},
  journal = {Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties},
  number = {3}
}

@book{decondorcet2014essai,
  title = {Essai Sur l'application de l'analyse \`a La Probabilit\'e Des D\'ecisions Rendues \`a La Pluralit\'e Des Voix},
  author = {De Condorcet, Nicolas and others},
  year = {2014},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}}
}

@techreport{delacuesta2019improving,
  title = {Improving the {{External Validity}} of {{Conjoint Analysis}}: {{The Essential Role}} of {{Profile Distribution}}},
  author = {{De la Cuesta}, Brandon and Egami, Naoki and Imai, Kosuke},
  year = {2019},
  type = {Working Paper. {{Available}} at: {{https://imai.fas.harvard.edu/research/files/conjoint.pdf}}}
}

@article{donoso2017social,
  title = {Social Movements in Chile},
  author = {Donoso, Sofia and Von B{\"u}low, Marisa},
  year = {2017},
  publisher = {{Springer}},
  journal = {Organization, Trajectories, and Political Consequences. Nueva York: Palgrave Macmillan}
}

@article{downs1957economic,
  title = {An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy},
  author = {Downs, Anthony},
  year = {1957},
  volume = {65},
  pages = {135--150},
  publisher = {{The University of Chicago Press}},
  journal = {Journal of political economy},
  number = {2}
}

@article{druckman2019what,
  title = {What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?},
  author = {Druckman, James N and Levendusky, Matthew S},
  year = {2019},
  volume = {83},
  pages = {114--122},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press UK}},
  journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
  number = {1}
}

@book{druckman2021advances,
  title = {Advances in {{Experimental Political Science}}},
  author = {Druckman, James and Green, Donald P.},
  year = {2021},
  month = apr,
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
  abstract = {Experimental political science has changed. In two short decades, it evolved from an emergent method to an accepted method to a primary method. The challenge now is to ensure that experimentalists design sound studies and implement them in ways that illuminate cause and effect. Ethical boundaries must also be respected, results interpreted in a transparent manner, and data and research materials must be shared to ensure others can build on what has been learned. This book explores the application of new designs; the introduction of novel data sources, measurement approaches, and statistical methods; the use of experiments in more substantive domains; and discipline-wide discussions about the robustness, generalizability, and ethics of experiments in political science. By exploring these novel opportunities while also highlighting the concomitant challenges, this volume enables scholars and practitioners to conduct high-quality experiments that will make key contributions to knowledge.},
  googlebooks = {mQEbEAAAQBAJ},
  isbn = {978-1-108-47850-2},
  keywords = {Political Science / General,Reference / Research},
  language = {en}
}

@article{evans2012depoliticization,
  title = {The {{Depoliticization}} of {{Inequality}} and {{Redistribution}}: {{Explaining}} the {{Decline}} of {{Class Voting}}},
  shorttitle = {The {{Depoliticization}} of {{Inequality}} and {{Redistribution}}},
  author = {Evans, Geoffrey and Tilley, James},
  year = {2012},
  month = oct,
  volume = {74},
  pages = {963--976},
  publisher = {{The University of Chicago Press}},
  issn = {0022-3816},
  doi = {10.1017/S0022381612000618},
  abstract = {The collapse of the class basis of party choice in Britain since the 1980s has been assumed to result from the diminishing distinctiveness of social classes in the postindustrial world. We argue instead that class dealignment results from the impact of an ideologically restricted choice set on the electoral relevance of values concerning inequality and redistribution. As these values provide a mechanism through which class divisions translate into differences in party choice, their declining relevance produces a concomitant decline in the effect of class position. These propositions are tested using British survey data covering the period from 1983 to 2010. We show that a supply-side constriction in the choices presented to voters, rather than the weakening of class divisions, accounts for the declining political relevance of redistributive values and the class basis of party choice. The politics of class influences class voting, not vice versa.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Dropbox\\Zotero\\Evans_Tilley_2012_The Depoliticization of Inequality and Redistribution.pdf;C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\WZQUNV3P\\S0022381612000618.html},
  journal = {The Journal of Politics},
  number = {4}
}

@book{evans2013political,
  title = {Political {{Choice Matters}}: {{Explaining}} the {{Strength}} of {{Class}} and {{Religious Cleavages}} in {{Cross}}-{{National Perspective}}},
  shorttitle = {Political {{Choice Matters}}},
  author = {Evans, Geoffrey and de Graaf, Nan Dirk},
  year = {2013},
  month = mar,
  publisher = {{OUP Oxford}},
  abstract = {Political Choice Matters investigates the extent to which class and religion influence party choice in contemporary democracies. Rather than the commonly-assumed process in which a weakening of social boundaries leads to declining social divisions in political preferences, this book's primary message is that the supply of choices by parties influences the extent of such divisions: hence, political choice matters. Combining overtime, cross-national data, and multi-level research designs the authors show how policy and programmatic positions adopted by parties provide voters with choice sets that accentuate or diminish the strength of political cleavages. The book gives central place to the positions of political parties on left-right, economically redistributive and morally conservative versus social liberal dimensions. Evidence on these positions is obtained primarily from the Comparative Manifesto Project, with a chapter dedicated to elaborating and validating the various implementations of this uniquely valuable source of evidence on party positions. The primary empirical focus includes case studies of 11 Western, Southern, and Central European societies as well as 'anglo-democracies' including Britain, USA, Canada, and Australia. These detailed analyses of election studies ranging in some cases from the post-war period until the early part of the 21st century are augmented by a pooled cross-national and overtime analysis of 15 Western democracies using a unique, combined dataset of 188 national surveys. The authors show that although there has been some overtime decline in the strength of association between social class and party choice, this is far smaller than the amount of change in the relationship occurring as a result of party movements on questions of inequality and redistribution. The strength of the religiosity cleavage is also influenced by changes in party positions on moral issues - changes that can be understood as a strategic response to a process of secularization that has weakened the electoral viability of parties deriving support from appeals to religious values.},
  googlebooks = {Hf5oAgAAQBAJ},
  isbn = {978-0-19-164062-9},
  keywords = {Political Science / Civics \& Citizenship,Political Science / Comparative Politics,Political Science / History \& Theory,Political Science / Political Process / Political Parties},
  language = {en}
}

@article{evans2016social,
  title = {Social Class: {{Identity}}, Awareness and Political Attitudes: {{Why}} Are We Still Working Class?},
  author = {Evans, Geoffrey and Mellon, Jonathan},
  year = {2016},
  volume = {33},
  publisher = {{National Centre for Social Research}},
  journal = {British Social Attitudes}
}

@book{evans2017new,
  title = {The New Politics of Class: {{The}} Political Exclusion of the {{British}} Working Class},
  author = {Evans, Geoffrey and Tilley, James},
  year = {2017},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}}
}

@book{fiorina1981retrospective,
  title = {Retrospective Voting in {{American}} National Elections},
  author = {Fiorina, Morris P},
  year = {1981},
  publisher = {{Yale University Press}}
}

@article{fiorina2002parties,
  title = {Parties and Partisanship: {{A}} 40-Year Retrospective},
  author = {Fiorina, Morris P},
  year = {2002},
  volume = {24},
  pages = {93--115},
  publisher = {{Springer}},
  journal = {Political Behavior},
  number = {2}
}

@article{flores2018who,
  title = {Who Are the "Illegals"? {{The}} Social Construction of Illegality in the {{United States}}},
  author = {Flores, Ren{\'e} D and Schachter, Ariela},
  year = {2018},
  volume = {83},
  pages = {839--868},
  publisher = {{SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA}},
  journal = {American Sociological Review},
  number = {5}
}

@inproceedings{flynn2016scope,
  title = {The Scope and Correlates of Political Misperceptions in the Mass Public},
  booktitle = {Annual Meeting of the {{American}} Political Science Association, {{Philadelphia}}},
  author = {Flynn, DJ},
  year = {2016}
}

@article{flynn2017nature,
  title = {The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: {{Understanding}} False and Unsupported Beliefs about Politics},
  author = {Flynn, DJ and Nyhan, Brendan and Reifler, Jason},
  year = {2017},
  volume = {38},
  pages = {127--150},
  publisher = {{Wiley Online Library}},
  journal = {Political Psychology}
}

@article{ford2014understanding,
  title = {Understanding {{UKIP}}: {{Identity}}, Social Change and the Left Behind},
  author = {Ford, Robert and Goodwin, Matthew},
  year = {2014},
  volume = {85},
  pages = {277--284},
  publisher = {{Wiley Online Library}},
  journal = {The Political Quarterly},
  number = {3}
}

@article{ford2017white,
  title = {Do White Voters Support Welfare Policies Targeted at Ethnic Minorities? {{Experimental}} Evidence from {{Britain}}},
  author = {Ford, Robert and Kootstra, Anouk},
  year = {2017},
  volume = {43},
  pages = {80--101},
  publisher = {{Taylor \& Francis}},
  journal = {Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies},
  number = {1}
}

@misc{ford2019has,
  title = {Has {{Brexit}} Really Divided {{Britain}}?},
  author = {Ford, Robert and Cowley, Philip},
  year = {2019},
  month = nov,
  abstract = {Few areas of the UK voted ovewhelmingly either Leave or Remain},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\EW4NNNTT\\how-much-has-brexit-divided-britain.html},
  howpublished = {https://unherd.com/2019/11/how-much-has-brexit-divided-britain/},
  journal = {UnHerd},
  language = {en-GB}
}

@article{ford2020changing,
  title = {The Changing Cleavage Politics of {{Western Europe}}},
  author = {Ford, Robert and Jennings, Will},
  year = {2020},
  volume = {23},
  pages = {295--314},
  publisher = {{Annual Reviews}},
  journal = {Annual review of political science}
}

@misc{full,
  title = {Full Article: {{Motivating Employees}} of the {{Public Sector}}: {{Does Public Service Motivation Matter}}?},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\S8FXU4IE\\10967494.2010.html},
  howpublished = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10967494.2010.503783?casa\_token=lCluCEFX5UwAAAAA\%3AhJlGLCEgH\_mnB8vvwiS3ws15X1p0UsKKIYZ58Rs4vPJoxerbAHCB5cHaBoWCw53hfwxRmgvaLvhF\_bQ}
}

@article{galesic2012social,
  title = {Social {{Sampling Explains Apparent Biases}} in {{Judgments}} of {{Social Environments}}},
  author = {Galesic, Mirta and Olsson, Henrik and Rieskamp, J{\"o}rg},
  year = {2012},
  month = dec,
  volume = {23},
  pages = {1515--1523},
  publisher = {{SAGE Publications Inc}},
  issn = {0956-7976},
  doi = {10.1177/0956797612445313},
  abstract = {How people assess their social environments plays a central role in how they evaluate their life circumstances. Using a large probabilistic national sample, we investigated how accurately people estimate characteristics of the general population. For most characteristics, people seemed to underestimate the quality of others' lives and showed apparent self-enhancement, but for some characteristics, they seemed to overestimate the quality of others' lives and showed apparent self-depreciation. In addition, people who were worse off appeared to enhance their social position more than those who were better off. We demonstrated that these effects can be explained by a simple social-sampling model. According to the model, people infer how others are doing by sampling from their own immediate social environments. Interplay of these sampling processes and the specific structure of social environments leads to the apparent biases. The model predicts the empirical results better than alternative accounts and highlights the importance of considering environmental structure when studying human cognition.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Dropbox\\Zotero\\Galesic et al_2012_Social Sampling Explains Apparent Biases in Judgments of Social Environments.pdf},
  journal = {Psychological Science},
  keywords = {regression,self-depreciation,self-enhancement,social circle,social cognition,social perception,social-sampling model},
  language = {en},
  number = {12}
}

@article{galesic2018sampling,
  title = {A Sampling Model of Social Judgment.},
  author = {Galesic, Mirta and Olsson, Henrik and Rieskamp, J{\"o}rg},
  year = {2018},
  volume = {125},
  pages = {363},
  publisher = {{American Psychological Association}},
  journal = {Psychological review},
  number = {3}
}

@article{garrett2016driving,
  title = {Driving a Wedge between Evidence and Beliefs: {{How}} Online Ideological News Exposure Promotes Political Misperceptions},
  author = {Garrett, R Kelly and Weeks, Brian E and Neo, Rachel L},
  year = {2016},
  volume = {21},
  pages = {331--348},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press Oxford, UK}},
  journal = {Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication},
  number = {5}
}

@article{garrett2019social,
  title = {Social Media's Contribution to Political Misperceptions in {{US Presidential}} Elections},
  author = {Garrett, R Kelly},
  year = {2019},
  volume = {14},
  pages = {e0213500},
  publisher = {{Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA}},
  journal = {PloS one},
  number = {3}
}

@article{garry2007making,
  title = {Making `Party Identification'More Versatile: {{Operationalising}} the Concept for the Multiparty Setting},
  author = {Garry, John},
  year = {2007},
  volume = {26},
  pages = {346--358},
  publisher = {{Elsevier}},
  journal = {Electoral Studies},
  number = {2}
}

@article{gilens2001political,
  title = {Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences},
  author = {Gilens, Martin},
  year = {2001},
  pages = {379--396},
  publisher = {{JSTOR}},
  journal = {American Political Science Review}
}

@article{goodwin20162016,
  title = {The 2016 {{Referendum}}, {{Brexit}} and the {{Left Behind}}: {{An Aggregate}}-Level {{Analysis}} of the {{Result}}},
  shorttitle = {The 2016 {{Referendum}}, {{Brexit}} and the {{Left Behind}}},
  author = {Goodwin, Matthew J. and Heath, Oliver},
  year = {2016},
  volume = {87},
  pages = {323--332},
  issn = {1467-923X},
  doi = {10.1111/1467-923X.12285},
  abstract = {Why did Britain vote for Brexit? What was the relative importance of factors such as education, age, immigration and ethnic diversity? And to what extent did the pattern of public support for Brexit across the country match the pattern of public support in earlier years for eurosceptic parties, notably the UK Independence Party (UKIP)? In this article we draw on aggregate-level data to conduct an initial exploration of the 2016 referendum vote. First, we find that turnout was generally higher in more pro-Leave areas. Second, we find that public support for Leave closely mapped past support for UKIP. And third, we find that support for Leave was more polarised along education lines than support for UKIP ever was. The implication of this finding is that support for euroscepticism has both widened and narrowed\textemdash it is now more widespread across Britain but it is also more socially distinctive.},
  annotation = {\_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-923X.12285},
  copyright = {\textcopyright{} The Authors 2016. The Political Quarterly \textcopyright{} The Political Quarterly Publishing Co. Ltd. 2016 Published by John Wiley \& Sons Ltd},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Dropbox\\Zotero\\Goodwin_Heath_2016_The 2016 Referendum, Brexit and the Left Behind.pdf;C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\YE3K7K7I\\1467-923X.html},
  journal = {The Political Quarterly},
  keywords = {Britain,European Union,referendum,UKIP,voting},
  language = {en},
  number = {3}
}

@article{graefe2014accuracy,
  title = {Accuracy of Vote Expectation Surveys in Forecasting Elections},
  author = {Graefe, Andreas},
  year = {2014},
  volume = {78},
  pages = {204--232},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press UK}},
  journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
  number = {S1}
}

@article{graham2020self,
  title = {Self-Awareness of Political Knowledge},
  author = {Graham, Matthew H},
  year = {2020},
  volume = {42},
  pages = {305--326},
  publisher = {{Springer}},
  journal = {Political Behavior},
  number = {1}
}

@article{grahamndmeasuring,
  title = {Measuring Misperceptions?},
  author = {Graham, Matthew H},
  year = {n.d.}
}

@book{green2004partisan,
  title = {Partisan Hearts and Minds: {{Political}} Parties and the Social Identities of Voters},
  author = {Green, Donald P and Palmquist, Bradley and Schickler, Eric},
  year = {2004},
  publisher = {{Yale University Press}}
}

@article{greene1999understanding,
  title = {Understanding Party Identification: {{A}} Social Identity Approach},
  author = {Greene, Steven},
  year = {1999},
  volume = {20},
  pages = {393--403},
  publisher = {{Wiley Online Library}},
  journal = {Political Psychology},
  number = {2}
}

@article{grigorieff2020does,
  title = {Does Information Change Attitudes toward Immigrants?},
  author = {Grigorieff, Alexis and Roth, Christopher and Ubfal, Diego},
  year = {2020},
  volume = {57},
  pages = {1117--1143},
  publisher = {{Springer}},
  journal = {Demography},
  number = {3}
}

@article{guess2018selective,
  title = {Selective Exposure to Misinformation: {{Evidence}} from the Consumption of Fake News during the 2016 {{US}} Presidential Campaign},
  author = {Guess, Andrew and Nyhan, Brendan and Reifler, Jason},
  year = {2018},
  volume = {9},
  pages = {4},
  journal = {European Research Council},
  number = {3}
}

@article{hainmueller2014causal,
  title = {Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: {{Understanding}} Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments},
  author = {Hainmueller, Jens and Hopkins, Daniel J and Yamamoto, Teppei},
  year = {2014},
  volume = {22},
  pages = {1--30},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
  journal = {Political analysis},
  number = {1}
}

@article{hainmueller2015validating,
  title = {Validating Vignette and Conjoint Survey Experiments against Real-World Behavior},
  author = {Hainmueller, Jens and Hangartner, Dominik and Yamamoto, Teppei},
  year = {2015},
  month = feb,
  volume = {112},
  pages = {2395--2400},
  publisher = {{National Academy of Sciences}},
  issn = {0027-8424, 1091-6490},
  doi = {10.1073/pnas.1416587112},
  abstract = {Survey experiments, like vignette and conjoint analyses, are widely used in the social sciences to elicit stated preferences and study how humans make multidimensional choices. However, there is a paucity of research on the external validity of these methods that examines whether the determinants that explain hypothetical choices made by survey respondents match the determinants that explain what subjects actually do when making similar choices in real-world situations. This study compares results from conjoint and vignette analyses on which immigrant attributes generate support for naturalization with closely corresponding behavioral data from a natural experiment in Switzerland, where some municipalities used referendums to decide on the citizenship applications of foreign residents. Using a representative sample from the same population and the official descriptions of applicant characteristics that voters received before each referendum as a behavioral benchmark, we find that the effects of the applicant attributes estimated from the survey experiments perform remarkably well in recovering the effects of the same attributes in the behavioral benchmark. We also find important differences in the relative performances of the different designs. Overall, the paired conjoint design, where respondents evaluate two immigrants side by side, comes closest to the behavioral benchmark; on average, its estimates are within 2\% percentage points of the effects in the behavioral benchmark.},
  chapter = {Social Sciences},
  copyright = {\textcopyright{}  . Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Dropbox\\Zotero\\Hainmueller et al_2015_Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior.pdf;C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\Q43VUNT4\\2395.html},
  journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
  keywords = {conjoint,public opinion,stated preferences,survey methodology,vignette},
  language = {en},
  number = {8},
  pmid = {25646415}
}

@article{heath2015policy,
  title = {Policy Representation, Social Representation and Class Voting in {{Britain}}},
  author = {Heath, Oliver},
  year = {2015},
  volume = {45},
  pages = {173--193},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
  journal = {British Journal of Political Science},
  number = {1}
}

@book{heath2016understanding,
  title = {Understanding {{Political Change}}: {{The British Voter}} 1964-1987},
  shorttitle = {Understanding {{Political Change}}},
  author = {Heath, Anthony},
  year = {2016},
  month = nov,
  publisher = {{Elsevier}},
  abstract = {The central concern of Understanding Political Change is to explore the social and political sources of electoral change in Britain. From the Labour successes of the 1960s through the reemergence of the Liberals as a national force in 1974 and the rise and fall of the SDP to the potential emergence of the Green Party in the 1990s, Dr Heath and his collaborators chart the continually changing mould of British politics. Questions of the greater volatility of a more sophisticated electorate, of new cleavages in society replacing those based on social class, of the Conservative government's deliberate and inadvertent interventions to shape the emerging social structure, and of the influence which the political parties have been able to exert on public attitudes are all addressed with reference to data from the election surveys carried out after each general election since 1964.},
  googlebooks = {XeddBgAAQBAJ},
  isbn = {978-1-4832-8709-6},
  keywords = {Political Science / Political Process / Campaigns \& Elections,Political Science / Political Process / General},
  language = {en}
}

@article{heath2018policy,
  title = {Policy Alienation, Social Alienation and Working-Class Abstention in {{Britain}}, 1964\textendash 2010},
  author = {Heath, Oliver},
  year = {2018},
  volume = {48},
  pages = {1053--1073},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
  journal = {British Journal of Political Science},
  number = {4}
}

@article{hobolt2020divided,
  title = {Divided by the Vote: {{Affective}} Polarization in the Wake of the {{Brexit}} Referendum},
  author = {Hobolt, Sara B and Leeper, Thomas J and Tilley, James},
  year = {2020},
  pages = {1--18},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
  journal = {British Journal of Political Science}
}

@book{hochschild2015facts,
  title = {Do Facts Matter?: {{Information}} and Misinformation in {{American}} Politics},
  author = {Hochschild, Jennifer L and Einstein, Katherine Levine},
  year = {2015},
  volume = {13},
  publisher = {{University of Oklahoma Press}}
}

@article{hogg1995tale,
  title = {A Tale of Two Theories: {{A}} Critical Comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory},
  author = {Hogg, Michael A and Terry, Deborah J and White, Katherine M},
  year = {1995},
  pages = {255--269},
  publisher = {{JSTOR}},
  journal = {Social psychology quarterly}
}

@article{hogg2006social,
  title = {Social Identity, Self-Categorization, and the Communication of Group Norms},
  author = {Hogg, Michael A and Reid, Scott A},
  year = {2006},
  volume = {16},
  pages = {7--30},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},
  journal = {Communication theory},
  number = {1}
}

@article{hogg2014prototypebased,
  title = {Prototype-Based Social Comparisons within Groups},
  author = {Hogg, Michael A and Gaffney, Amber M},
  year = {2014},
  volume = {145},
  journal = {Communal functions of social comparison}
}

@book{houtman2009farewell,
  title = {Farewell to the {{Leftist Working Class}}},
  author = {Houtman, Dick and Achterberg, Peter and Derks, Anton},
  year = {2009},
  month = jun,
  publisher = {{Transaction Publishers}},
  abstract = {Social conflicts and voting patterns in Western nations indicate a gradual erosion of working-class support for the left, a process that class theory itself cannot adequately explain. Farewell to the Leftist Working Class aims to fill this gap by developing, testing, and confirming an alternative explanation of rightist tendencies among the underprivileged. The authors argue that cultural issues revolving around individual liberty and maintenance of social order have become much more significant since World War II. The obligation to work and strict notions of deservingness have become central to the debate about the welfare state. Indeed, although economic egalitarianism is more typically found among the working class, it is only firmly connected to a universalistic and inclusionary progressive political ideology among the middle class. Farewell to the Leftist Working Class reports cutting-edge research into the withering away of working-class support for the left and the welfare state, drawing mostly on survey data collected in Western Europe, the United States, and other Western countries.},
  isbn = {978-1-4128-0910-8},
  keywords = {History / General,Political Science / General,Social Science / Sociology / General},
  language = {en}
}

@article{huddy2001social,
  title = {From Social to Political Identity: {{A}} Critical Examination of Social Identity Theory},
  author = {Huddy, Leonie},
  year = {2001},
  volume = {22},
  pages = {127--156},
  publisher = {{Wiley Online Library}},
  journal = {Political psychology},
  number = {1}
}

@book{huddy2013oxford,
  title = {The {{Oxford}} Handbook of Political Psychology},
  author = {Huddy, Leonie and Sears, David O and Levy, Jack S},
  year = {2013},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}}
}

@article{huddy2015expressive,
  title = {Expressive Partisanship: {{Campaign}} Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity},
  author = {Huddy, Leonie and Mason, Lilliana and Aar{\o}e, Lene},
  year = {2015},
  pages = {1--17},
  publisher = {{JSTOR}},
  journal = {American Political Science Review}
}

@article{iyengar2012affect,
  title = {Affect, {{Not IdeologyA Social Identity Perspective}} on {{Polarization}}},
  author = {Iyengar, Shanto and Sood, Gaurav and Lelkes, Yphtach},
  year = {2012},
  month = jan,
  volume = {76},
  pages = {405--431},
  publisher = {{Oxford Academic}},
  issn = {0033-362X},
  doi = {10.1093/poq/nfs038},
  abstract = {Abstract.  The current debate over the extent of polarization in the American mass public focuses on the extent to which partisans' policy preferences have move},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\83IBNTVC\\Iyengar et al. - 2012 - Affect, Not IdeologyA Social Identity Perspective .pdf;C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\BBDLMU6G\\1894274.html},
  journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
  keywords = {Affect,Polarization,Social Identity},
  language = {en},
  number = {3}
}

@article{jansen2013class,
  title = {Class Voting and {{Left}}\textendash{{Right}} Party Positions: {{A}} Comparative Study of 15 {{Western}} Democracies, 1960\textendash 2005},
  shorttitle = {Class Voting and {{Left}}\textendash{{Right}} Party Positions},
  author = {Jansen, Giedo and Evans, Geoffrey and de Graaf, Nan Dirk},
  year = {2013},
  month = mar,
  volume = {42},
  pages = {376--400},
  issn = {0049-089X},
  doi = {10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.09.007},
  abstract = {Studies that explain the class voting have often focused on ``bottom-up'' social factors, but paid little attention to `top-down' political factors. We argue that party positions on left\textendash right ideology have an effect on the strength of class voting. This argument is tested by estimating the impact of the Left\textendash Right party positions on the class-vote association through a Two-Step Hierarchical analysis of integrated data from 15 countries in Western-Europe, the United States and Australia (1960\textendash 2005) supplemented with data from the Comparative Manifesto Project. Although there is a general trend for class voting to decline over time, partially accounted for by the impact of education, we find that most variation in class voting does not take the form of a linear decline. The ideological positions of left-wing parties alone do not have any effect, but the polarization of parties along the left\textendash right dimension is associated with substantially higher levels of class voting.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\ASGUMYJT\\S0049089X12001810.html},
  journal = {Social Science Research},
  keywords = {Class voting,Electoral change,Party manifestos,Party positions,Social class,Voting behavior},
  language = {en},
  number = {2}
}

@article{jansen2013classa,
  title = {Class Voting and {{Left}}\textendash{{Right}} Party Positions: {{A}} Comparative Study of 15 {{Western}} Democracies, 1960\textendash 2005},
  shorttitle = {Class Voting and {{Left}}\textendash{{Right}} Party Positions},
  author = {Jansen, Giedo and Evans, Geoffrey and de Graaf, Nan Dirk},
  year = {2013},
  month = mar,
  volume = {42},
  pages = {376--400},
  issn = {0049089X},
  doi = {10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.09.007},
  abstract = {Studies that explain the class voting have often focused on ``bottom-up'' social factors, but paid little attention to `top-down' political factors. We argue that party positions on left\textendash right ideology have an effect on the strength of class voting. This argument is tested by estimating the impact of the Left\textendash Right party positions on the class-vote association through a Two-Step Hierarchical analysis of integrated data from 15 countries in Western-Europe, the United States and Australia (1960\textendash 2005) supplemented with data from the Comparative Manifesto Project. Although there is a general trend for class voting to decline over time, partially accounted for by the impact of education, we find that most variation in class voting does not take the form of a linear decline. The ideological positions of left-wing parties alone do not have any effect, but the polarization of parties along the left\textendash right dimension is associated with substantially higher levels of class voting.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\4RYK8MZJ\\Jansen et al. - 2013 - Class voting and Left–Right party positions A com.pdf},
  journal = {Social Science Research},
  language = {en},
  number = {2}
}

@incollection{jardina2019racial,
  title = {Racial {{Prejudice}}, {{Racial Identity}}, and {{Attitudes}} in {{Political Decision Making}}},
  booktitle = {Oxford {{Research Encyclopedia}} of {{Politics}}},
  author = {Jardina, Ashley and Piston, Spencer},
  year = {2019}
}

@article{jenke2021using,
  title = {Using {{Eye}}-{{Tracking}} to {{Understand Decision}}-{{Making}} in {{Conjoint Experiments}}},
  author = {Jenke, Libby and Bansak, Kirk and Hainmueller, Jens and Hangartner, Dominik},
  year = {2021},
  month = jan,
  volume = {29},
  pages = {75--101},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
  issn = {1047-1987, 1476-4989},
  doi = {10.1017/pan.2020.11},
  abstract = {Conjoint experiments are popular, but there is a paucity of research on respondents' underlying decision-making processes. We leverage eye-tracking methodology and a series of conjoint experiments, administered to university students and local community members, to examine how respondents process information in conjoint surveys. There are two main findings. First, attribute importance measures inferred from the stated choice data are correlated with attribute importance measures based on eye movement. This validation test supports the interpretation of common conjoint metrics, such as average marginal component effects (AMCEs), as measures of attribute importance. Second, when we experimentally increase the number of attributes and profiles in the conjoint table, respondents view a larger absolute number of cells but a smaller fraction of the total cells displayed. Moving from two to three profiles, respondents search more within-profile, rather than within-attribute, to build summary evaluations. However, respondents' stated choices remain fairly stable regardless of the number of attributes and profiles in the conjoint table. Together, these patterns speak to the robustness of conjoint experiments and are consistent with a bounded rationality mechanism. Respondents adapt to complexity by selectively incorporating relevant new information to focus on important attributes, while ignoring less relevant information to reduce cognitive processing costs.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Dropbox\\Zotero\\Jenke et al_2021_Using Eye-Tracking to Understand Decision-Making in Conjoint Experiments.pdf;C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\3BZ3WIYG\\A0A53740F79838E9A77A79E37559F8DC.html},
  journal = {Political Analysis},
  keywords = {causal inference,decision-making processes,experimental design,eye-tracking},
  language = {en},
  number = {1}
}

@article{jennings2017tilting,
  title = {Tilting towards the Cosmopolitan Axis? {{Political}} Change in {{England}} and the 2017 General Election},
  author = {Jennings, Will and Stoker, Gerry},
  year = {2017},
  volume = {88},
  pages = {359--369},
  publisher = {{Wiley Online Library}},
  journal = {The Political Quarterly},
  number = {3}
}

@article{jerit2020political,
  title = {Political Misinformation},
  author = {Jerit, Jennifer and Zhao, Yangzi},
  year = {2020},
  volume = {23},
  pages = {77--94},
  publisher = {{Annual Reviews}},
  journal = {Annual Review of Political Science},
  number = {1}
}

@article{joslyn2018motivated,
  title = {Motivated {{Innumeracy}}: {{Estimating}} the {{Size}} of the {{Gun Owner Population}} and {{Its Consequences}} for {{Opposition}} to {{Gun Restrictions}}},
  shorttitle = {Motivated {{Innumeracy}}},
  author = {Joslyn, Mark R. and Haider-Markel, Donald P.},
  year = {2018},
  volume = {46},
  pages = {827--850},
  issn = {1747-1346},
  doi = {10.1111/polp.12276},
  abstract = {Past research suggests that people substantially overestimate the size of minority populations. Labeled ``innumeracy,'' inflated estimates of minority populations can have a negative impact on intergroup relations and influence policy attitudes toward minority groups. Our research examines people's estimates of the gun owner population in the United States. We discover that people vastly overestimate gun ownership and similarly misjudge its future growth. Estimations of size are influenced by several determinants including gun ownership and affective orientations toward gun owners. Gun owners, compared to nongun owners, reported higher estimations of the gun owner population. In addition, positive feelings toward gun owners were associated with increased estimates of gun ownership. Affective orientations toward minority populations are in fact a key predictor neglected by prior innumeracy studies. Finally, estimations of the gun owner population, and judgments about its future growth, were both significant determinants of gun policy preferences. Related Articles Smith-Walter, Aaron, Holly L. Peterson, Michael D. Jones and Ashley Nicole Reynolds Marshall. 2016. ``Gun Stories: How Evidence Shapes Firearm Policy in the United States.'' Politics \& Policy 44 (6): 1053-1088. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12187 Cagle, M. Christine and J. Michael Martinez. 2004. ``Have Gun, Will Travel: The Dispute Between the CDC and the NRA on Firearm Violence as a Public Health Problem.'' Politics \& Policy 32 (2): 278-310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2004.tb00185.x Tucker, Justin A., James W. Stoutenborough, and R. Matthew Beverlin. 2012. ``Geographic Proximity in the Diffusion of Concealed Weapons Permit Laws.'' Politics \& Policy 40 (6): 1081-1105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00399.x Related Media Pew Research Center. 2013. ``Gun Ownership Trends and Demographics.'' https://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/ Smith, Tom W. and Jaesok Son. 2015. ``General Social Survey Final Report: Trends in Gun Ownership in the United States, 1972-2014..'' NORC at the University of Chicago. https://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS\%20Reports/GSS\_Trends\%20in\%20Gun\%20Ownership\_US\_1972-2014.pdf},
  annotation = {\_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/polp.12276},
  copyright = {\textcopyright{} 2018 Policy Studies Organization},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Dropbox\\Zotero\\Joslyn_Haider‐Markel_2018_Motivated Innumeracy.pdf;C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\9FKTRQVU\\polp.html},
  journal = {Politics \& Policy},
  keywords = {actitudes,Affective Feelings,Fire Arms,Firearms,Gun Control Policy Attitudes,Gun Owners,Gun Ownership Population,Gun Policy Preferences,Gun Restrictions,innumerismo de la población,National Rifle Association,NRA,política de armas,Population Innumeracy,propietario de armas,Regulation Policy,Restrictive Gun Laws,sentimientos afectivos,The United States,人口数盲,态度,情感感受,枪支持有人,枪支政策},
  language = {en},
  number = {6}
}

@article{jump2020education,
  title = {Education and the Geography of {{Brexit}}},
  author = {Jump, Robert Calvert and Michell, Jo},
  year = {2020},
  month = dec,
  volume = {0},
  pages = {1--13},
  publisher = {{Routledge}},
  issn = {1745-7289},
  doi = {10.1080/17457289.2020.1839471},
  abstract = {While it is well established that educational attainment is highly correlated with Brexit voting patterns, the predictive capacity of education has attracted less attention. Using full-sample and split-sample exercises, this paper demonstrates that educational attainment alone can correctly classify over 90\% of local authorities by voting outcome in the 2016 referendum to leave the EU, depending on the prediction model and classification method used. This illustrates the importance of education as a key factor in the geography of Brexit.},
  annotation = {\_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2020.1839471},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Dropbox\\Zotero\\Jump_Michell_2020_Education and the geography of Brexit.pdf;C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\8SUJJHRA\\17457289.2020.html},
  journal = {Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties},
  number = {0}
}

@book{kahneman2011thinking,
  title = {Thinking, Fast and Slow ({{Kindle Edition}})},
  author = {Kahneman, Daniel},
  year = {2011},
  publisher = {{Penguin Books}}
}

@article{kalmoe2019speaking,
  title = {Speaking of {{Parties}}\textbackslash ldots {{Dueling Views}} in a {{Canonical Measure}} of {{Sophistication}}},
  author = {Kalmoe, Nathan P},
  year = {2019},
  volume = {83},
  pages = {68--90},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press UK}},
  journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
  number = {1}
}

@article{kaufmann2017occupation,
  title = {Occupation {{Class}} on the {{Decline}}, {{Cultural Class}} on the {{Rise}}: {{A Response}} to {{The New Politics}} of {{Class}} by {{Geoffrey Evans}} and {{James Tilley}}},
  author = {Kaufmann, Eric},
  year = {2017},
  volume = {88},
  pages = {698--701},
  publisher = {{Wiley Online Library}},
  journal = {The Political Quarterly},
  number = {4}
}

@book{kinder2017neither,
  title = {Neither Liberal nor Conservative: {{Ideological}} Innocence in the {{American}} Public},
  author = {Kinder, Donald R and Kalmoe, Nathan P},
  year = {2017},
  publisher = {{University of Chicago Press}}
}

@book{kitschelt2010latin,
  title = {Latin American Party Systems},
  author = {Kitschelt, Herbert and Hawkins, Kirk A and Luna, Juan Pablo and Rosas, Guillermo and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J},
  year = {2010},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}}
}

@article{krupnikov2015racial,
  title = {Racial Prejudice, Partisanship, and {{White}} Turnout in Elections with {{Black}} Candidates},
  author = {Krupnikov, Yanna and Piston, Spencer},
  year = {2015},
  volume = {37},
  pages = {397--418},
  publisher = {{Springer}},
  journal = {Political Behavior},
  number = {2}
}

@article{kuklinski2000misinformation,
  title = {Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship},
  author = {Kuklinski, James H and Quirk, Paul J and Jerit, Jennifer and Schwieder, David and Rich, Robert F},
  year = {2000},
  volume = {62},
  pages = {790--816},
  publisher = {{University of Texas Press}},
  journal = {The Journal of Politics},
  number = {3}
}

@article{kunda1990case,
  title = {The Case for Motivated Reasoning.},
  author = {Kunda, Ziva},
  year = {1990},
  volume = {108},
  pages = {480},
  publisher = {{American Psychological Association}},
  journal = {Psychological bulletin},
  number = {3}
}

@article{kunovich2017perceptions,
  title = {Perceptions of {{Racial Group Size}} in a {{Minority}}-Majority {{Area}}},
  author = {Kunovich, Robert M.},
  year = {2017},
  month = jun,
  volume = {60},
  pages = {479--496},
  publisher = {{SAGE Publications Inc}},
  issn = {0731-1214},
  doi = {10.1177/0731121416675869},
  abstract = {Americans overestimate the size of minority groups and underestimate the size of the majority. Research on perceived racial group size, however, has focused on areas where non-Hispanic whites are dominant and has neglected to examine the impact of group conflict attitudes other than perceived threats. This study examines perceptions of group size in Harris County, Texas, in 2007, which became a minority-majority area by 2006. It also examines whether perceived racial discrimination influences perceived group size. Analyses demonstrate that people underestimate the size of the largest group, which in this case is the local Hispanic population. The sizes of the black and Asian populations, by contrast, are overestimated while estimates of the white population are accurate. Race and perceived discrimination play important roles in shaping perceptions of group size. Perceptions of group size are also based on the objective size of these groups, but are unrelated to recent changes in group size.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Dropbox\\Zotero\\Kunovich_2017_Perceptions of Racial Group Size in a Minority-majority Area.pdf},
  journal = {Sociological Perspectives},
  language = {en},
  number = {3}
}

@incollection{lavine2002line,
  title = {On-Line versus Memory-Based Process Models of Political Evaluation},
  booktitle = {Political Psychology},
  author = {Lavine, Howard},
  year = {2002},
  pages = {225--274},
  publisher = {{Publisher: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates}},
  address = {{Mahwah, NJ}}
}

@book{lavine2012ambivalent,
  title = {The Ambivalent Partisan: {{How}} Critical Loyalty Promotes Democracy},
  author = {Lavine, Howard G and Johnston, Christopher D and Steenbergen, Marco R},
  year = {2012},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}}
}

@article{lawrence2014consequences,
  title = {The Consequences of Political Innumeracy},
  author = {Lawrence, Eric D and Sides, John},
  year = {2014},
  volume = {1},
  pages = {2053168014545414},
  publisher = {{SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England}},
  journal = {Research \& Politics},
  number = {2}
}

@article{lee2018decomposing,
  title = {Decomposing Political Knowledge: {{What}} Is Confidence in Knowledge and Why It Matters},
  author = {Lee, Seonghui and Matsuo, Akitaka},
  year = {2018},
  volume = {51},
  pages = {1--13},
  publisher = {{Elsevier}},
  journal = {Electoral Studies}
}

@article{lehrer2019wisdom,
  title = {The Wisdom of Crowds Design for Sensitive Survey Questions},
  author = {Lehrer, Roni and Juhl, Sebastian and Gschwend, Thomas},
  year = {2019},
  month = feb,
  volume = {57},
  pages = {99--109},
  issn = {0261-3794},
  doi = {10.1016/j.electstud.2018.09.012},
  abstract = {Survey research on sensitive questions is challenging because respondents often answer untruthfully or completely refuse to answer. Existing indirect questioning techniques address the problem of social desirability bias at the expense of decreasing estimates' efficiency. We suggest the Wisdom of Crowds survey design that does not pose a tradeoff between anonymity and efficiency as an alternative. We outline the conditions necessary for the technique to work and test them empirically. Moreover, we compare the Wisdom of Crowd estimate of a right-wing populist party's vote share to alternative indirect questioning techniques' estimates as well as to the official election result in the 2017 German federal election. Provided its conditions are met, the Wisdom of Crowds design performs best in terms of both bias and efficiency. We conclude that the Wisdom of Crowds design is an important addition to social scientists' survey methodology toolbox.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\KTSP8JPP\\S0261379418303329.html},
  journal = {Electoral Studies},
  keywords = {Measurement,Sensitive questions,Social desirability,Vote choice,Wisdom of crowds},
  language = {en}
}

@article{leiter2018social,
  title = {Social Networks and Citizen Election Forecasting: {{The}} More Friends the Better},
  shorttitle = {Social Networks and Citizen Election Forecasting},
  author = {Leiter, Debra and Murr, Andreas and Rasc{\'o}n Ram{\'i}rez, Ericka and Stegmaier, Mary},
  year = {2018},
  month = apr,
  volume = {34},
  pages = {235--248},
  issn = {0169-2070},
  doi = {10.1016/j.ijforecast.2017.11.006},
  abstract = {Most citizens correctly forecast which party will win a given election, and such forecasts usually have a higher level of accuracy than voter intention polls. How do citizens do it? We argue that social networks are a big part of the answer: much of what we know as citizens comes from our interactions with others. Previous research has considered only indirect characteristics of social networks when analyzing why citizens are good forecasters. We use a unique German survey and consider direct measures of social networks in order to explore their role in election forecasting. We find that three network characteristics \textendash ~ size, political composition, and frequency of political discussion \textendash ~are among the most important variables when predicting the accuracy of citizens' election forecasts.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Dropbox\\Zotero\\Leiter et al_2018_Social networks and citizen election forecasting.pdf;C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\DN59K7FY\\S0169207017301371.html},
  journal = {International Journal of Forecasting},
  keywords = {Citizen forecasting,Election forecasting,Expectations,Germany,Political interest,Public opinion,Social networks},
  language = {en},
  number = {2}
}

@article{lelkes2017limits,
  title = {The Limits of Partisan Prejudice},
  author = {Lelkes, Yphtach and Westwood, Sean J},
  year = {2017},
  volume = {79},
  pages = {485--501},
  publisher = {{University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL}},
  journal = {The Journal of Politics},
  number = {2}
}

@article{levendusky2016mis,
  title = {({{Mis}}) Perceptions of Partisan Polarization in the {{American}} Public},
  author = {Levendusky, Matthew S and Malhotra, Neil},
  year = {2016},
  volume = {80},
  pages = {378--391},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press US}},
  journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
  number = {S1}
}

@book{levitsky2011resurgence,
  title = {The Resurgence of the {{Latin American}} Left},
  author = {Levitsky, Steven and Roberts, Kenneth M},
  year = {2011},
  publisher = {{JHU Press}}
}

@article{lewandowsky2012misinformation,
  title = {Misinformation and Its Correction: {{Continued}} Influence and Successful Debiasing},
  author = {Lewandowsky, Stephan and Ecker, Ullrich KH and Seifert, Colleen M and Schwarz, Norbert and Cook, John},
  year = {2012},
  volume = {13},
  pages = {106--131},
  publisher = {{Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA}},
  journal = {Psychological science in the public interest},
  number = {3}
}

@article{lewis-beck2011citizen,
  title = {Citizen Forecasting: {{Can UK}} Voters See the Future?},
  author = {{Lewis-Beck}, Michael S and Stegmaier, Mary},
  year = {2011},
  volume = {30},
  pages = {264--268},
  publisher = {{Elsevier}},
  journal = {Electoral Studies},
  number = {2}
}

@article{li2020value,
  title = {The Value of Not Knowing: {{Partisan}} Cue-Taking and Belief Updating of the Uninformed, the Ambiguous, and the Misinformed},
  author = {Li, Jianing and Wagner, Michael W},
  year = {2020},
  volume = {70},
  pages = {646--669},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},
  journal = {Journal of Communication},
  number = {5}
}

@book{lodge2013rationalizing,
  title = {The Rationalizing Voter},
  author = {Lodge, Milton and Taber, Charles S},
  year = {2013},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}}
}

@article{louviere2001choice,
  title = {Choice Experiments: An Overview of Concepts and Issues},
  author = {Louviere, Jordan J},
  year = {2001},
  volume = {13},
  publisher = {{Edward Elgar, Northampton, UK}},
  journal = {The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation}
}

@article{lupu2013party,
  title = {Party Brands and Partisanship: {{Theory}} with Evidence from a Survey Experiment in {{Argentina}}},
  author = {Lupu, Noam},
  year = {2013},
  volume = {57},
  pages = {49--64},
  publisher = {{Wiley Online Library}},
  journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
  number = {1}
}

@book{lupu2016party,
  title = {Party Brands in Crisis: Partisanship, Brand Dilution, and the Breakdown of Political Parties in {{Latin America}}},
  author = {Lupu, Noam},
  year = {2016},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}}
}

@article{luskin1987measuring,
  title = {Measuring Political Sophistication},
  author = {Luskin, Robert C},
  year = {1987},
  pages = {856--899},
  publisher = {{JSTOR}},
  journal = {American journal of political science}
}

@article{luskin1990explaining,
  title = {Explaining Political Sophistication},
  author = {Luskin, Robert C},
  year = {1990},
  volume = {12},
  pages = {331--361},
  publisher = {{Springer}},
  journal = {Political Behavior},
  number = {4}
}

@book{maggini2016young,
  title = {Young People's Voting Behaviour in {{Europe}}: {{A}} Comparative Perspective},
  author = {Maggini, Nicola},
  year = {2016},
  publisher = {{Springer}}
}

@inproceedings{mahalanobis1936generalized,
  title = {On the Generalized Distance in Statistics},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the {{National Institute}} of {{Science}} of {{India}}},
  author = {Mahalanobis, Prasanta Chandra},
  year = {1936},
  volume = {12},
  pages = {49--55},
  organization = {{National Institute of Science of India}}
}

@article{margolis2018how,
  title = {How Politics Affects Religion: {{Partisanship}}, Socialization, and Religiosity in {{America}}},
  author = {Margolis, Michele F},
  year = {2018},
  volume = {80},
  pages = {30--43},
  publisher = {{University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL}},
  journal = {The Journal of Politics},
  number = {1}
}

@inproceedings{marks2017dealignment,
  title = {Dealignment Meets Cleavage Theory},
  booktitle = {American Political Science Association Meeting, San Francisco, {{CA}}},
  author = {Marks, Gary and Attewell, David and Rovny, Jan and Hooghe, Liesbet},
  year = {2017},
  volume = {30}
}

@article{marshall2016education,
  title = {Education and {{Voting Conservative}}: {{Evidence}} from a {{Major Schooling Reform}} in {{Great Britain}}},
  shorttitle = {Education and {{Voting Conservative}}},
  author = {Marshall, John},
  year = {2016},
  month = apr,
  volume = {78},
  pages = {382--395},
  publisher = {{The University of Chicago Press}},
  issn = {0022-3816},
  doi = {10.1086/683848},
  abstract = {High school education is central to adolescent socialization and has important downstream consequences for adult life. However, scholars examining schooling's political effects have struggled to reconcile education's correlation with both more liberal social attitudes and greater income. To disentangle this relationship, I exploit a major school leaving age reform in Great Britain that caused almost half the population to remain at high school for at least an additional year. Using a fuzzy regression discontinuity design, I find that each additional year of late high school increases the probability of voting Conservative in later life by 12 percentage points. A similar relationship holds when pooling all cohorts, suggesting that high school education is a key determinant of voting behavior and that the reform could have significantly altered electoral outcomes. I provide evidence suggesting that, by increasing an individual's income, education increases support for right-wing economic policies and, ultimately, the Conservative Party.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Dropbox\\Zotero\\Marshall_2016_Education and Voting Conservative.pdf;C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\YYB64VE2\\683848.html},
  journal = {The Journal of Politics},
  number = {2}
}

@article{mason2015disrespectfully,
  title = {``{{I}} Disrespectfully Agree'': {{The}} Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization},
  author = {Mason, Lilliana},
  year = {2015},
  volume = {59},
  pages = {128--145},
  publisher = {{Wiley Online Library}},
  journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
  number = {1}
}

@article{mason2016crosscutting,
  title = {A Cross-Cutting Calm: {{How}} Social Sorting Drives Affective Polarization},
  author = {Mason, Lilliana},
  year = {2016},
  volume = {80},
  pages = {351--377},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press US}},
  journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
  number = {S1}
}

@article{mason2018ideologues,
  title = {Ideologues without Issues: {{The}} Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities},
  author = {Mason, Lilliana},
  year = {2018},
  volume = {82},
  pages = {866--887},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press US}},
  journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
  number = {S1}
}

@book{mccrone2015understanding,
  title = {Understanding {{National Identity}}},
  author = {McCrone, David and Bechhofer, Frank},
  year = {2015},
  month = mar,
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
  abstract = {We live in a world in which being a 'citizen' of a state and being a 'national' are by no means the same. Amidst much scholarly debate about 'nations' and 'nationalism', comparatively little has been written explicitly on 'national identity' and a great deal less is solidly evidence-based. This book focuses on national identity in England and Scotland. Using data collected over twenty years it asks: does national identity really matter to people? How does 'national identity' differ from 'nationality' and having a passport? Are there particular people and places which have ambiguous or contested national identities? What happens if someone makes a claim to a national identity? On what basis do others accept or reject the claim? Does national identity have much internal substance, or is it simply about defending group boundaries? How does national identity relate to politics and constitutional change?},
  googlebooks = {YpfeBgAAQBAJ},
  isbn = {978-1-107-10038-1},
  keywords = {Political Science / Civics \& Citizenship,Social Science / Sociology / General},
  language = {en}
}

@article{mcgarty2009collective,
  title = {Collective Action as the Material Expression of Opinion-Based Group Membership},
  author = {McGarty, Craig and Bliuc, Ana-Maria and Thomas, Emma F and Bongiorno, Renata},
  year = {2009},
  volume = {65},
  pages = {839--857},
  publisher = {{Wiley Online Library}},
  journal = {Journal of Social Issues},
  number = {4}
}

@article{medeiros2014forgotten,
  title = {The Forgotten Side of Partisanship: {{Negative}} Party Identification in Four {{Anglo}}-{{American}} Democracies},
  author = {Medeiros, Mike and No{\"e}l, Alain},
  year = {2014},
  volume = {47},
  pages = {1022--1046},
  publisher = {{SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA}},
  journal = {Comparative Political Studies},
  number = {7}
}

@article{melendez2019political,
  title = {Political Identities: {{The}} Missing Link in the Study of Populism},
  author = {Mel{\'e}ndez, Carlos and Rovira Kaltwasser, Cristobal},
  year = {2019},
  volume = {25},
  pages = {520--533},
  publisher = {{SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England}},
  journal = {Party Politics},
  number = {4}
}

@article{miceli2000consequences,
  title = {Consequences of {{Satisfaction}} with {{Pay Systems}}: {{Two Field Studies}}},
  shorttitle = {Consequences of {{Satisfaction}} with {{Pay Systems}}},
  author = {Miceli, Marcia P. and Mulvey, Paul W.},
  year = {2000},
  volume = {39},
  pages = {62--87},
  issn = {1468-232X},
  doi = {10.1111/0019-8676.00153},
  abstract = {Research on pay satisfaction has been criticized for inattention to determining whether its multiple dimensions have different consequences and for overreliance on cross-sectional designs. Structural equation analyses of data from two field studies showed that satisfaction with pay systems, but not pay levels, led to greater perceived organizational support, which in turn affected employer commitment and organizational citizenship. Union commitment was a positive function of pay system satisfaction and a negative function of pay level satisfaction.},
  annotation = {\_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/0019-8676.00153},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Dropbox\\Zotero\\Miceli_Mulvey_2000_Consequences of Satisfaction with Pay Systems.pdf;C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\UM4FKI9Q\\0019-8676.html},
  journal = {Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society},
  language = {en},
  number = {1}
}

@article{michael2015negative,
  title = {Negative Partisanship in a Multi-Party System: The Case of {{Canada}}},
  author = {Michael McGregor, R and Caruana, Nicholas J and Stephenson, Laura B},
  year = {2015},
  volume = {25},
  pages = {300--316},
  publisher = {{Taylor \& Francis}},
  journal = {Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties},
  number = {3}
}

@article{mildenberger2019beliefs,
  title = {Beliefs about Climate Beliefs: The Importance of Second-Order Opinions for Climate Politics},
  author = {Mildenberger, Matto and Tingley, Dustin},
  year = {2019},
  volume = {49},
  pages = {1279--1307},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
  journal = {British Journal of Political Science},
  number = {4}
}

@techreport{mummolo2019limits,
  title = {The {{Limits}} of {{Partisan Loyalty}}},
  author = {Mummolo, Jonathan and Peterson, Erik and Westwood, Sean},
  year = {2019},
  month = mar,
  address = {{Rochester, NY}},
  institution = {{Social Science Research Network}},
  doi = {10.2139/ssrn.3246632},
  abstract = {While partisan cues tend to dominate political choice, prior work shows that competing information can mute the effects of partisanship if it relates to salient political issues. But what are the limits of partisan loyalty? How much electoral leeway do co-partisan candidates have to deviate from the party line on important issues? We answer this question using conjoint survey experiments that characterize the role of partisanship relative to issues. We demonstrate a pattern of conditional party loyalty. Partisanship dominates electoral choice when elections center on low-salience issues. But while partisan loyalty is strong, it is finite: voters are more likely than not to vote for the co-partisan candidate until that candidate takes dissonant stances on four or more salient issues. These findings illuminate when and why partisanship fails to dominate political choice. They also suggest that, on many issues, public opinion minimally constrains politicians.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\72M945MA\\Papers.html},
  keywords = {Erik Peterson,Jonathan Mummolo,Sean Westwood,SSRN,The Limits of Partisan Loyalty},
  language = {en},
  number = {ID 3246632},
  type = {{{SSRN Scholarly Paper}}}
}

@article{mummolo2019limits,
  title = {The Limits of Partisan Loyalty},
  author = {Mummolo, Jonathan and Peterson, Erik and Westwood, Sean},
  year = {2019},
  pages = {1--24},
  publisher = {{Springer}},
  journal = {Political Behavior}
}

@article{murphy1986new,
  title = {A New Decomposition of the {{Brier}} Score: {{Formulation}} and Interpretation},
  author = {Murphy, Allan H},
  year = {1986},
  volume = {114},
  pages = {2671--2673},
  journal = {Monthly weather review},
  number = {12}
}

@article{murr2011wisdom,
  title = {"{{Wisdom}} of Crowds"? {{A}} Decentralised Election Forecasting Model That Uses Citizens' Local Expectations},
  author = {Murr, Andreas Erwin},
  year = {2011},
  volume = {30},
  pages = {771--783},
  publisher = {{Elsevier}},
  journal = {Electoral Studies},
  number = {4}
}

@article{murr2016wisdom,
  title = {The Wisdom of Crowds: What Do Citizens Forecast for the 2015 {{British}} General Election?},
  author = {Murr, Andreas E},
  year = {2016},
  volume = {41},
  pages = {283--288},
  publisher = {{Elsevier}},
  journal = {Electoral Studies}
}

@article{nyhan2010corrections,
  title = {When Corrections Fail: {{The}} Persistence of Political Misperceptions},
  author = {Nyhan, Brendan and Reifler, Jason},
  year = {2010},
  volume = {32},
  pages = {303--330},
  publisher = {{Springer}},
  journal = {Political Behavior},
  number = {2}
}

@inproceedings{nyhan2010death,
  title = {Why the" Death Panel" Myth Wouldn't Die: {{Misinformation}} in the Health Care Reform Debate},
  booktitle = {The Forum},
  author = {Nyhan, Brendan},
  year = {2010},
  volume = {8},
  pages = {0000102202154088841354},
  organization = {{De Gruyter}}
}

@article{nyhan2015displacing,
  title = {Displacing Misinformation about Events: {{An}} Experimental Test of Causal Corrections},
  author = {Nyhan, Brendan and Reifler, Jason},
  year = {2015},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press (CUP)}}
}

@article{ogrady2019careerists,
  title = {Careerists {{Versus Coal}}-{{Miners}}: {{Welfare Reforms}} and the {{Substantive Representation}} of {{Social Groups}} in the {{British Labour Party}}},
  shorttitle = {Careerists {{Versus Coal}}-{{Miners}}},
  author = {O'Grady, Tom},
  year = {2019},
  month = mar,
  volume = {52},
  pages = {544--578},
  issn = {0010-4140, 1552-3829},
  doi = {10.1177/0010414018784065},
  abstract = {Many parties have seen declines in working-class legislators and increases in professional career politicians. I argue that career politicians are more likely to adopt policies for strategic political reasons, whereas working-class politicians are more likely to represent the interests of working-class voters. Changes in the representation of these occupational groups matter substantively whenever legislators' strategic concerns contradict the interests of working-class voters. Welfare reforms adopted in the 1990s and 2000s by the British Labour Party exhibit this divergence. The two types of politicians held very different policy positions, which I measure using a scaling method applied to all speeches made about welfare in the House of Commons from 1987-2007. The results carry over to voting behavior and are robust to alternative explanations, including other characteristics of both MPs and their voters. The changing representation of occupational groups has therefore had substantive policy effects, lowering the political influence of working-class voters.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\XPIQJW8L\\O’Grady - 2019 - Careerists Versus Coal-Miners Welfare Reforms and.pdf},
  journal = {Comparative Political Studies},
  language = {en},
  number = {4}
}

@article{ogrady2019careeristsa,
  title = {Careerists {{Versus Coal}}-{{Miners}}: {{Welfare Reforms}} and the {{Substantive Representation}} of {{Social Groups}} in the {{British Labour Party}}},
  shorttitle = {Careerists {{Versus Coal}}-{{Miners}}},
  author = {O'Grady, Tom},
  year = {2019},
  month = mar,
  volume = {52},
  pages = {544--578},
  publisher = {{SAGE Publications Inc}},
  issn = {0010-4140},
  doi = {10.1177/0010414018784065},
  abstract = {Many parties have seen declines in working-class legislators and increases in professional career politicians. I argue that career politicians are more likely to adopt policies for strategic political reasons, whereas working-class politicians are more likely to represent the interests of working-class voters. Changes in the representation of these occupational groups matter substantively whenever legislators' strategic concerns contradict the interests of working-class voters. Welfare reforms adopted in the 1990s and 2000s by the British Labour Party exhibit this divergence. The two types of politicians held very different policy positions, which I measure using a scaling method applied to all speeches made about welfare in the House of Commons from 1987 to 2007. The results carry over to voting behavior and are robust to alternative explanations, including other characteristics of both MPs and their voters. The changing representation of occupational groups has therefore had substantive policy effects, lowering the political influence of working-class voters.},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Dropbox\\Zotero\\O’Grady_2019_Careerists Versus Coal-Miners.pdf},
  journal = {Comparative Political Studies},
  language = {en},
  number = {4}
}

@article{oliveros2018merit,
  title = {Merit, Tenure, and Bureaucratic Behavior: {{Evidence}} from a Conjoint Experiment in the {{Dominican Republic}}},
  author = {Oliveros, Virginia and Schuster, Christian},
  year = {2018},
  volume = {51},
  pages = {759--792},
  publisher = {{SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA}},
  journal = {Comparative Political Studies},
  number = {6}
}

@article{orme1998sample,
  title = {Sample Size Issues for Conjoint Analysis Studies},
  author = {Orme, Bryan},
  year = {1998},
  journal = {Sequim: Sawtooth Software Technical Paper}
}

@book{page2010rational,
  title = {The Rational Public: {{Fifty}} Years of Trends in {{Americans}}' Policy Preferences},
  author = {Page, Benjamin I and Shapiro, Robert Y},
  year = {2010},
  publisher = {{University of Chicago Press}}
}

@article{pasek2015misinformed,
  title = {Misinformed about the Affordable Care Act? {{Leveraging}} Certainty to Assess the Prevalence of Misperceptions},
  author = {Pasek, Josh and Sood, Gaurav and Krosnick, Jon A},
  year = {2015},
  volume = {65},
  pages = {660--673},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},
  journal = {Journal of Communication},
  number = {4}
}

@article{perry2014more,
  title = {More like Us: {{How}} Religious Service Attendance Hinders Interracial Romance},
  author = {Perry, Samuel L},
  year = {2014},
  volume = {75},
  pages = {442--462},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},
  journal = {Sociology of Religion},
  number = {3}
}

@article{peterson2021partisan,
  title = {Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information-Seeking Behavior: {{Motivated}} Reasoning or Cheerleading?},
  author = {Peterson, Erik and Iyengar, Shanto},
  year = {2021},
  volume = {65},
  pages = {133--147},
  publisher = {{Wiley Online Library}},
  journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
  number = {1}
}

@article{phinney1992multigroup,
  title = {The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: {{A}} New Scale for Use with Diverse Groups},
  author = {Phinney, Jean S},
  year = {1992},
  volume = {7},
  pages = {156--176},
  publisher = {{SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. 2455 Teller Road, Newbury Park, CA 91320}},
  journal = {Journal of adolescent research},
  number = {2}
}

@article{phinney2007conceptualization,
  title = {Conceptualization and Measurement of Ethnic Identity: {{Current}} Status and Future Directions.},
  author = {Phinney, Jean S and Ong, Anthony D},
  year = {2007},
  volume = {54},
  pages = {271},
  publisher = {{American Psychological Association}},
  journal = {Journal of counseling Psychology},
  number = {3}
}

@book{pitkin1967concept,
  title = {The Concept of Representation},
  author = {Pitkin, Hanna F},
  year = {1967},
  volume = {75},
  publisher = {{Univ of California Press}}
}

@article{pnud2014auditoria,
  title = {Auditor\'ia a La Democracia. {{M\'as}} y Mejor Democracia Para Un Chile Inclusivo},
  author = {PNUD},
  year = {2014},
  publisher = {{PNUD Santiago de Chile}}
}

@book{popkin1991reasoning,
  title = {The {{Reasoning Voter}}: {{Communication}} and {{Persuasion}} in {{Presidential Campaigns}}},
  author = {Popkin, Samuel L.},
  year = {1991},
  publisher = {{University of Chicago Press}}
}

@article{prior2015you,
  title = {You Cannot Be Serious: {{The}} Impact of Accuracy Incentives on Partisan Bias in Reports of Economic Perceptions},
  author = {Prior, Markus and Sood, Gaurav and Khanna, Kabir and others},
  year = {2015},
  volume = {10},
  pages = {489--518},
  publisher = {{Citeseer}},
  journal = {Quarterly Journal of Political Science},
  number = {4}
}

@article{pronin200236,
  title = {36. {{Understanding Misunderstanding}}: {{Social Psychological Perspectives}}},
  author = {Pronin, Emily and Puccio, Carolyn and Ross, Lee},
  year = {2002}
}

@book{przeworski1986capitalism,
  title = {Capitalism and Social Democracy},
  author = {Przeworski, Adam},
  year = {1986},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}}
}

@article{ramsay2010misinformation,
  title = {Misinformation and the 2010 Election: {{A}} Study of the {{US}} Electorate},
  author = {Ramsay, Clay and Kull, Steven and Lewis, Evan and Subias, Stefan and others},
  year = {2010}
}

@article{reeves2017labour,
  title = {Labour's {{Class Coalitions}}, {{Then}} and {{Now}}: {{A Response}} to {{The New Politics}} of {{Class}} by {{Geoffrey Evans}} and {{James Tilley}}},
  author = {Reeves, Rachel},
  year = {2017},
  volume = {88},
  pages = {702--706},
  publisher = {{Wiley Online Library}},
  journal = {The Political Quarterly},
  number = {4}
}

@article{rogowski2016ideology,
  title = {How Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization},
  author = {Rogowski, Jon C and Sutherland, Joseph L},
  year = {2016},
  volume = {38},
  pages = {485--508},
  publisher = {{Springer}},
  journal = {Political Behavior},
  number = {2}
}

@article{rose1998negative,
  title = {Negative and Positive Party Identification in Post-Communist Countries},
  author = {Rose, Richard and Mishler, William},
  year = {1998},
  volume = {17},
  pages = {217--234},
  publisher = {{Elsevier}},
  journal = {Electoral Studies},
  number = {2}
}

@article{rothschild2011forecasting,
  title = {Forecasting Elections: {{Voter}} Intentions versus Expectations},
  author = {Rothschild, David and Wolfers, Justin},
  year = {2011},
  journal = {Available at SSRN 1884644}
}

@article{rothschild2019pigeonholing,
  title = {Pigeonholing Partisans: {{Stereotypes}} of Party Supporters and Partisan Polarization},
  author = {Rothschild, Jacob E and Howat, Adam J and Shafranek, Richard M and Busby, Ethan C},
  year = {2019},
  volume = {41},
  pages = {423--443},
  publisher = {{Springer}},
  journal = {Political Behavior},
  number = {2}
}

@article{rufibach2010use,
  title = {Use of {{Brier}} Score to Assess Binary Predictions},
  author = {Rufibach, Kaspar},
  year = {2010},
  volume = {63},
  pages = {938--939},
  publisher = {{Elsevier}},
  journal = {Journal of clinical epidemiology},
  number = {8}
}

@book{rydgren2012class,
  title = {Class {{Politics}} and the {{Radical Right}}},
  author = {Rydgren, Jens},
  year = {2012},
  month = dec,
  publisher = {{Routledge}},
  abstract = {One of the most significant events in European politics the past two decades is the emergence of radical right-wing parties, mobilizing against immigration and multiethnic societies. Such parties have established themselves in a large number of countries, often with voter shares exceeding ten and sometimes even twenty percent. Many of these parties exert a real influence on the policy within respective country. The emergence of the recent wave of radical right-wing party politics has generated a large and growing literature, spanning a variety of dimensions\textemdash such as ideology, voting, and policy impact. This volume will cover all these dimensions, but it will in particular focus on two questions: why is it that the working class tends to be especially attracted by the radical right-wing parties? And what does the radical right-wing parties growing electoral successes mean for Social Democracy and the traditional left in Europe, which are meeting growing competition from the radical right over working class voters? Bringing together the leading scholars within this field, this book makes a unique contribution by focusing on the relationship between class politics and the radical right.},
  isbn = {978-1-136-16061-5},
  keywords = {Political Science / General},
  language = {en}
}

@book{savage2015social,
  title = {Social Class in the 21st Century},
  author = {Savage, Mike},
  year = {2015},
  publisher = {{Penguin UK}}
}

@article{savage2017politics,
  title = {Politics and the {{New Sociology}} of {{Class}}: {{A Response}} to {{The New Politics}} of {{Class}} by {{Geoffrey Evans}} and {{James Tilley}}},
  author = {Savage, Mike},
  year = {2017},
  volume = {88},
  pages = {707--709},
  publisher = {{Wiley Online Library}},
  journal = {The Political Quarterly},
  number = {4}
}

@article{schuman1980public,
  title = {Public Opinion and Public Ignorance: {{The}} Fine Line between Attitudes and Nonattitudes},
  author = {Schuman, Howard and Presser, Stanley},
  year = {1980},
  volume = {85},
  pages = {1214--1225},
  publisher = {{University of Chicago Press}},
  journal = {American Journal of Sociology},
  number = {5}
}

@book{schwarz2014cognition,
  title = {Cognition and Communication: {{Judgmental}} Biases, Research Methods, and the Logic of Conversation},
  author = {Schwarz, Norbert},
  year = {2014},
  publisher = {{Psychology Press}}
}

@article{shamir1997pluralistic,
  title = {Pluralistic Ignorance across Issues and over Time: {{Information}} Cues and Biases},
  author = {Shamir, Jacob and Shamir, Michal},
  year = {1997},
  pages = {227--260},
  publisher = {{JSTOR}},
  journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly}
}

@article{sherman2003naive,
  title = {Nai\"\"ve Realism and Affirmative Action: {{Adversaries}} Are More Similar than They Think},
  author = {Sherman, David K and Nelson, Leif D and Ross, Lee D},
  year = {2003},
  volume = {25},
  pages = {275--289},
  publisher = {{Taylor \& Francis}},
  journal = {Basic and Applied Social Psychology},
  number = {4}
}

@book{simon1957models,
  title = {Models of Man; Social and Rational},
  author = {Simon, Herbert A.},
  year = {1957},
  pages = {xiv, 287},
  publisher = {{Wiley}},
  address = {{Oxford, England}},
  abstract = {This book is a collection of 16 previously published papers organized under the following topics: (1) Causation. These papers consider formal definition of causal relations and problems of causality in the study of influence and power. (2) Social processes. Four papers outline a) differential equation models for Homan's theory of group interaction and Festinger's propositions on pressures toward group conformity, b) stochastic models that yield skewed distributions. (3) Motivation. This section presents formal models a) for integrating the theory of the firm and theory of organization, b) for behavior in the employment relation. (4) Rationality. In this section are papers on urban-rural population ratio, use of servomechanism theory, behavioral models for rational choice, and a game theoretic derivation of matching behavior under partial reinforcement. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)},
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\8CD77C97\\1958-00363-000.html},
  series = {Models of Man; Social and Rational}
}

@incollection{sloam2019youthquake,
  title = {Youthquake: {{Young People}} and the 2017 {{General Election}}},
  booktitle = {Youthquake 2017},
  author = {Sloam, James and Henn, Matt},
  year = {2019},
  pages = {91--115},
  publisher = {{Springer}}
}

@book{smith2016foundations,
  title = {Foundations of Multicultural Psychology: {{Research}} to Inform Effective Practice.},
  author = {Smith, Timothy B and Trimble, Joseph E},
  year = {2016},
  publisher = {{American Psychological Association}}
}

@article{sobolewska2019british,
  title = {British {{Culture Wars}}? {{Brexit}} and the {{Future Politics}} of {{Immigration}} and {{Ethnic Diversity}}},
  author = {Sobolewska, Maria and Ford, Robert},
  year = {2019},
  volume = {90},
  pages = {142--154},
  publisher = {{Wiley Online Library}},
  journal = {The Political Quarterly}
}

@article{sosnaud2013class,
  title = {Class in Name Only: {{Subjective}} Class Identity, Objective Class Position, and Vote Choice in {{American}} Presidential Elections},
  author = {Sosnaud, Benjamin and Brady, David and Frenk, Steven M},
  year = {2013},
  volume = {60},
  pages = {81--99},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press Oxford, UK}},
  journal = {Social Problems},
  number = {1}
}

@article{storm2017ethnic,
  title = {Is Ethnic Prejudice Declining in {{B}} Ritain? {{C}} Hange in Social Distance Attitudes among Ethnic Majority and Minority {{B}} Ritons},
  author = {Storm, Ingrid and Sobolewska, Maria and Ford, Robert},
  year = {2017},
  volume = {68},
  pages = {410--434},
  publisher = {{Wiley Online Library}},
  journal = {The British journal of sociology},
  number = {3}
}

@incollection{strack1987thinking,
  title = {Thinking, Judging, and Communicating: {{A}} Process Account of Context Effects in Attitude Surveys},
  booktitle = {Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology},
  author = {Strack, Fritz and Martin, Leonard L},
  year = {1987},
  pages = {123--148},
  publisher = {{Springer}}
}

@article{stubager2010development,
  title = {The Development of the Education Cleavage: {{Denmark}} as a Critical Case},
  author = {Stubager, Rune},
  year = {2010},
  volume = {33},
  pages = {505--533},
  publisher = {{Taylor \& Francis}},
  journal = {West European Politics},
  number = {3}
}

@article{surowiecki2005wisdom,
  title = {The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few.},
  author = {Surowiecki, James},
  year = {2005},
  volume = {39},
  journal = {Abacus: New Edition}
}

@article{taber2006motivated,
  title = {Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs},
  author = {Taber, Charles S and Lodge, Milton},
  year = {2006},
  volume = {50},
  pages = {755--769},
  publisher = {{Wiley Online Library}},
  journal = {American journal of political science},
  number = {3}
}

@article{tajfel1974social,
  title = {Social Identity and Intergroup Behaviour},
  author = {Tajfel, Henri},
  year = {1974},
  volume = {13},
  pages = {65--93},
  publisher = {{Sage Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA}},
  journal = {Information (International Social Science Council)},
  number = {2}
}

@article{tajfel1979integrative,
  title = {An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict},
  author = {Tajfel, Henri and Turner, John C and Austin, William G and Worchel, Stephen},
  year = {1979},
  volume = {56},
  pages = {65},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press Oxford, UK}},
  journal = {Organizational identity: A reader}
}

@article{tilley2017new,
  title = {The New Politics of Class after the 2017 General Election},
  author = {Tilley, James and Evans, Geoffrey},
  year = {2017},
  volume = {88},
  publisher = {{John Wiley \& Sons Ltd}},
  journal = {Political Quarterly},
  number = {4}
}

@article{todorov2004public,
  title = {Public Opinion on Foreign Policy: {{The}} Multilateral Public That Perceives Itself as Unilateral},
  author = {Todorov, Alexander and Mandisodza, Anesu N},
  year = {2004},
  volume = {68},
  pages = {323--348},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},
  journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
  number = {3}
}

@article{tourangeau2000psychology,
  title = {The Psychology of Survey Response},
  author = {Tourangeau, Roger and Rips, Lance J and Rasinski, Kenneth},
  year = {2000},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}}
}

@book{turner1987rediscovering,
  title = {Rediscovering the Social Group: {{A}} Self-Categorization Theory.},
  author = {Turner, John C and Hogg, Michael A and Oakes, Penelope J and Reicher, Stephen D and Wetherell, Margaret S},
  year = {1987},
  publisher = {{Basil Blackwell}}
}

@article{umana-taylor2004developing,
  title = {Developing the Ethnic Identity Scale Using {{Eriksonian}} and Social Identity Perspectives},
  author = {{Uma{\~n}a-Taylor}, Adriana J and Yazedjian, Ani and {B{\'a}maca-G{\'o}mez}, Mayra},
  year = {2004},
  volume = {4},
  pages = {9--38},
  publisher = {{Taylor \& Francis}},
  journal = {Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research},
  number = {1}
}

@article{vraga2020defining,
  title = {Defining Misinformation and Understanding Its Bounded Nature: {{Using}} Expertise and Evidence for Describing Misinformation},
  author = {Vraga, Emily K and Bode, Leticia},
  year = {2020},
  volume = {37},
  pages = {136--144},
  publisher = {{Taylor \& Francis}},
  journal = {Political Communication},
  number = {1}
}

@article{wallsten2001understanding,
  title = {Understanding Pooled Subjective Probability Estimates},
  author = {Wallsten, Thomas S and Diederich, Adele},
  year = {2001},
  volume = {41},
  pages = {1--18},
  publisher = {{Elsevier}},
  journal = {Mathematical Social Sciences},
  number = {1}
}

@article{wallsten2017race,
  title = {Race, Partisanship, and Perceptions of Inter-Minority Commonality},
  author = {Wallsten, Kevin and Nteta, Tatishe M},
  year = {2017},
  volume = {5},
  pages = {298--320},
  publisher = {{Taylor \& Francis}},
  journal = {Politics, Groups, and Identities},
  number = {2}
}

@incollection{warde2010disidentification,
  title = {Dis-Identification and Class Identity},
  booktitle = {Cultural {{Analysis}} and the {{Legacy}} of {{Bourdieu}}: Settling Accounts and Developing Alternatives},
  author = {Warde, Alan and Savage, Mike and Silva, Elizabeth},
  year = {2010},
  publisher = {{Routledge}}
}

@book{wong2010boundaries,
  title = {Boundaries of Obligation in {{American}} Politics: {{Geographic}}, National, and Racial Communities},
  author = {Wong, Cara J},
  year = {2010},
  publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}}
}

@article{zaller1992simple,
  title = {A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: {{Answering}} Questions versus Revealing Preferences},
  author = {Zaller, John and Feldman, Stanley},
  year = {1992},
  pages = {579--616},
  publisher = {{JSTOR}},
  journal = {American journal of political science}
}

@article{zick2008ethnic,
  title = {Ethnic Prejudice and Discrimination in Europe},
  author = {Zick, Andreas and Pettigrew, Thomas F and Wagner, Ulrich},
  year = {2008},
  volume = {64},
  pages = {233--251},
  journal = {Journal of Social Issues},
  number = {2}
}

@misc{zotero-164,
  file = {C\:\\Users\\ntite\\Zotero\\storage\\RWPQTYZC\\scholar.html},
  howpublished = {https://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar.bib?q=info:LwVWOR2skikJ:scholar.google.com/\&output=citation\&scisdr=CgU9rc7DEIKakBAkQT0:AAGBfm0AAAAAXvshWT1N5wl7-U9PedFi5s66Xq8wemXa\&scisig=AAGBfm0AAAAAXvshWado-jsuUDbmr1K1NF6WVvMKIY7t\&scisf=4\&ct=citation\&cd=-1\&hl=en\&scfhb=1}
}


